Community wealth versus personal wealth. Private business assets that serve the public, can be considered part of community wealth along with public infrastructure and so forth.

I prefer community wealth to personal wealth. My thoughts are different than the thinking of many folks. I think community wealth can include private wealth that serves the public; for instance a store that the public can shop at. This is different than wealth is not open to the public; such as the store owner's private home.

Community wealth also includes wealth owned by government; such as parks, roads and schools. Community wealth can be owned by worker's collectives, coops, non profits and so forth.

Even large private corporations can be community wealth. Chains of stores, such as even Walmart, can serve the public if the public wants the fruits of "economy of scale." Bigness sometimes means lower prices, more selection and so forth. Small "mom and pop" stores offer other virtues; such as connection to local community.

Big corporations can be owned by a very wealthy individual who's wealth is invested in the stores themselves, or they can be owned by stockholders. Stocks can be owned by things like union pension funds, or exclusive private circles of super wealthy and often greedy owners.

Much of the quality of life depends on how people behave who own and use the wealth. Undue influence over politicians is irresponsible use of wealth. Advertising can be seen as a problematic use of wealth.

Community wealth, that is open to and used by the public, is better in my opinion, than personal wealth; such as a bunch of mansions that are for private use only.

Interesting to note; I've heard that Oprah Winfrey had one of her private homes on Orcas Island, near here. It was later sold to another owner.

Private ownership of business isn't necessarily worse than government, non profits, collectives or condo associations. It's about the people and the quality of stewardship.

I recently saw a video with Bernie Sanders standard augment that a small number of wealthy control the wealth while much of the rest of Americans are barely getting by. It could be true, but the majority of Americans haven't been voting to change this. Why?

I tend to think there is always going to be ownership of business whether it's government, non profits, worker coops, or private individuals. Someone is going to be taking leadership roles. It might be something owned by many, such as a condo association. I've heard that some condo associations are the "association from hell."

People don't always trust government though government leaders are elected while private owners aren't elected. What's wrong with government?

Worker owned businesses and coops might be better, but they have their issues as well. It depends on who's taking leadership roles? Not everyone is always happy. There is always majority and minority points of view as to how an organization should be run.

It seems like stewardship is more the issue; rather than whether it's private owners or not.

In some cases, private owners reinvest in the business and don't take that much out for personal profit. In other cases the owners milk it for all it's worth, ripping off the employees, customers and communities. Even with non profits there are folks, in leadership, who are bad leaders and even profiting from extravagant salaries. Non profits can be badly managed as well as coops, governments and private corporations.

Stewardship seems to be more the issue.

One wonders why we keep having bad leadership in so many cases. People don't always vote or shop, for that matter, in their best interest.

Not just an elite. In this era, we have a mass wealthy class. 20, maybe even 30% of the population. That could be both good and bad. It's a new way to articulate the situation

Foundation work on a large condo project in our waterfront redevelopment district.

I hear, through the grapevine, that it's got plenty of buyers. It's considered high end with condos around the million dollar range. These days, being a millionaire is middle class, or at least slightly upper middle class.

There is a mass class of millionaires, a product of prosperity, but also a distortion because owning a home has lead to such great wealth appreciation, over the years, that it's pushed lots of ordinary people into millionaire class; on paper at least.

I often enjoy watching construction and I realize that large private investments help to jump start new things in the city; such as redevelopment of the waterfront. Lots of people complain about these projects, however.

Our city is experiencing changes and construction. Too much of it is thought of as for "high end." There are waiting lists and bidding wars for high end homes. Waiting lists implies lots of people. Seems like this isn't just a small elite. High end is just the middle class, or at least slightly upper middle class.

Not just in Bellingham, but nationwide, we seem to be experiencing the effects of a mass wealthy class. A product of prosperity and home value appreciation. This is having an effect on the landscape.

Most people, in this mass wealthy class, don't think of themselves as wealthy. Maybe they aren't. Everything is relative.

The term upper end may need to be redefined. Upper end is now actually just middle class. True upper end are now the multi millionaires and the billionaires.

Much of the focus of criticism, on the left, is focused on the 1% which are well into the multi millionaire and the billionaire class. Still, the bidding wars over homes and the lack of affordable housing, for lower middle class, may have more to do with the large number of people in the upper middle classes. It has to do with a large population which also relates to population growth.

Immigration is a factor in this country's population growth, but immigration isn't necessarily bad. It brings in labor, prosperity and vitality. A certain percent of immigrants do rise to the upper middle class thus helping to feed the bidding wars for housing. Bidding wars; especially in areas, like Bellingham, that are still considered nice places to live.

I think we do need to consider not just the 1%, but also the effects of the upper middle class on our landscape. It isn't all bad, but it has a big effect due to the large number of people involved.

Much of upper middle class is willing to tax themselves more for the benefit of the larger community.

There are a lot of voters in upper middle class, but if upper middle class doesn't feel gratitude for it's situation, it tends to vote like it's poor. It tends to support the politics of austerity and tax cuts.

Tax cut politics seems to always benefit the 1% and the billionaires as well. People often vote for tax cuts to middle class while complaining about the 1%. Seems like this tax cut politics always benefits the 1% also. Seems like practically nowhere has been able to pass a billionaire tax. Tax cut politics for the upper middle class does seem to always benefit the very top as well.

Much of the consumption of resources also comes from the middle class. Policies that can lead to higher gas prices, like restrictions on oil drilling, effect the middle class. If the middle class feels poor and barely getting by when gas prices go up, the politics can shift against environmental rules that restrict oil production. So much is still governed by supply and demand.

If the vast number of people, in the middle class, really started pushing for a more fair and ecologically sustainable society, changes could really start happening much faster.

I think the 1% would have to change also as the power of mass markets would be shifting. The 1% stay on top by knowing how to play the market. If the market changes, they would feel the pressure also.

The vast number of voters in the middle class could change the market forces and political landscape.

Maybe I am naive, but I think the vast middle class could come from more of a mindset of gratitude versus a mindset of fear and the feeling of poverty. I think much of the feeling of poverty comes from constantly comparing oneself to people who make more money. Ultimately comparing oneself to the 1%.

It's our whole culture of emphasis on material wealth, I guess. Something pushed in the media, pushed by most of the 1% and bought by just about everyone else.

A mind shift in the middle class could move both the mass markets and the political landscape toward a better and more sustainable culture.

If international competitiveness of corporations is compromised paying whole bill for infrastructure, maybe a gas tax and or carbon tax could help.

Looks like all Democrats may not support Biden's raising of corporate taxes / infrastructure bill. With Republicans probably against it, just one no vote from a Democrat would kill the bill.

I got to thinking, maybe they should spread the tax over a wider base of revenue sources. Raise corporate tax slightly less, but add a gas tax. Also a tax on high income individuals. Small taxes in all these areas.

Basically a gas tax is a carbon tax. Yes, a true carbon tax covers all carbon fuels, but gasoline is one of the worst. We already have a gas tax. The federal gas tax hasn't been raised in years so it could go up a bit. A new tax, such as a carbon tax, might be harder to pass.

Just raise the gas tax a few pennies. 2 or 3 cents a gallon? These kind of taxes can be regressive so proposed carbon taxes have included complex systems for rebating money to low income people. Often the proposals fail due, in part, to complexity of measures to try and mitigate the impact on low income and essential workers.

Maybe just a small tax is the answer. Keep it simple.

Just a few pennies wouldn't stop climate change, but it's better than nothing. Keeping it low is a simple way to address the regressive nature of such a tax.

Over time, it could be raised. Anti tax people don't like the idea of a tax raising over time. They see it as the camel putting his nose under the tent and then ratcheting it up.

If global warming is as serious as some scientists think, a tax that ratchets up might be the least of our problems.

One problem with any tax change is how hard it is to get anything through the Senate. If we can get enough Senators on board and use the reconciliation tool against filibuster, we might be able to raise modest taxes. If this were the case, the taxes wouldn't have to be the be all and end all solution.

Easier passage through the Senate would allow things to be adjusted on an ongoing basis. This could include taxes as well as infrastructure improvements and strategies for dealing with climate change. It wouldn't have to be the one do or die one big time solution.

We really need to take care of these things as we go along.

As for a tax on wealthy individuals, that could direct a corporation's capital to better uses. Corporations sometimes use much of their money to pad the incomes of their top executives / stockholders. Other times, they invest it in things, like new buildings or scientific research, to improve their products and services.

If the corporation is using it's money to improve it's product and service, that's not necessarily bad, but if the money is mostly going to personal income of the folks on top, it should be more taxed.

Maybe it's easier to sort that out as a personal income / wealth, or even / inheritance tax than as a business / corporate income tax.

Mutual funds seem more friendly to low income investors than home ownership which requires the high threshold of income to qualify for a mortgage.

I read that 55% of Americans own stock. A lot of people own stock and bonds as part of their retirement plans. On the other hand, most of the total value in the stock market is owned by the wealthiest people.

Home value is most likely the main way that common folks save money, but, like the stock market, home ownership is driving wealth disparity. As home values keep rising, the gap between owners and renters widens.

The gap between long term home owners, who bought at lower prices and more recent home buyers, who are buried under a high mortgage, widens as well.

Ironically, the stock market seems friendlier than home ownership for low income people. One can invest small amounts of money into a mutual fund for stocks. Being a homeowner requires the high threshold of having enough income to qualify for a mortgage.

As asset values, such as homes and stocks, continue to rise, the wealth gap widens.

Low interest rates seem to be adding to this problem. Private enterprise doesn't seem to use the money, from low interest rates, very wisely.

As some folks just sit back and watch their financial assets rise in value (your money working for you), government spending is needed to help people who don't have assets.

I've heard it suggested that government should be able to borrow at zero interest rates. In this way, there would be no interest on government debt. As for paying off the debt, government could just "keep kicking the can down the road," which is what it's doing anyway.

Government spending could create meaningful jobs in infrastructure development. Government seems to work better than the private market in doing the things we need; especially in dealing with the pandemic. Also it seems like government is needed to develop green infrastructure for addressing the global warming challenge.

Private enterprise can still be used to carry out the actual work. Use the private sector to carry out government contracts. In these tasks, private enterprise often does better than government bureaucracy.

Private enterprise can do the work, but government seems to work better as a consumer than just relying on the private marketplace alone.

Elon Musk's Space X is an example of government / private sector partnership. A private company sending rockets into space, but much of the revenue still comes from NASA; a government agency.

Glad I am in subsidized housing.

Does anyone need to have billions of dollars? Maybe in this circumstance.

How much money is enough money? How many vacation mansions does one family need? Some people have way too much money. There's vast and growing wealth and income inequality. If everyone was alike, it would be a more boring world, but too much inequality is the other bad extreme.

Income inequality is often justified by the need that business has for capital to run the business. Someone doesn't need hundreds of millions for personal consumption, but the budget of a business may need to be in the millions, or the billions to meet the payroll and build the facilities that house the business.

If the money is invested in a business, that money is needed. Tax discussions need to take this into account, but for "pure luxury personal income," some people make way too much money for the health of society.

Maybe corporations pay less income tax overseas, but wealthy individuals pay more. We could do that here in USA to incentivize business investment.

Republicans are pushing for a corporate tax cut. They say business and corporations pay 35% taxes in USA while only having to pay 15% taxes in Canada. Lower corporate taxes in other developed countries as well. I can understand that logic, but what they don't say is that wealthy individuals pay higher taxes in Canada and most other developed countries. Maybe business gets more of a tax break, but wealthy individuals pay more.

I think the tax talk needs to do a better job differentiating between business and personal wealth.

I can see trying to reform taxes to create incentives for people to keep their money in business creating American jobs. Invest in the business, rather than the personal wealth that's spent on second homes and so forth. The wealthy, in this country, inflate things like the housing market by investing in already existing asserts; houses, collectables, famous paintings and so forth. Maybe the tax code should be modified to encourage people to put their money to work in a jobs creating business instead.

If we get a corporate tax cut, we shouldn't have it for nothing. Raising taxes on wealthy individual's personal income would be needed to balance that.

I know that some folks, on the left, would totally oppose any tax cut to business; especially corporations. They say that corporations find all the loopholes and don't pay much in taxes anyway. They really don't pay 35%. To some extent, that could be true. It's like a he said, she said kind of argument.

Another problem with the business tax cut idea is that artificial intelligence and automation is taking away many of the well paying jobs. Even if the business environment, in USA, is improved to make it more of an even playing field with other countries, there is no guarantee that lots of good jobs will follow.

To some extent, corporate culture and rampant materialism is the problem. We need to learn how to strive for quality of life. Part of quality of life could be developing business and a meaningful career so I can still see the logic in trying to help business to some extent. On the other hand, we also need to learn how to create quality of life in spite of whether the economy is booming or not.

I sometimes listen to Larry Kudlow on the radio who talks about corporate tax cuts, but people like him seem to never talk about balancing this with other taxes. It's all cut, cut, cut. Personal income of the wealthy, in this country, is vast and personal income taxes are much lower in USA than other developed countries such as Canada.

Some conservative economists say that just about any tax cut can be paid back from the taxes paid by increased economic activity caused by the tax cut. They always say that, but I'm sure there's a law of diminishing returns here. If tax cuts were always the road to prosperity we could conceivably cut taxes to 0 for maximum prosperity. I know, with the law of diminishing returns, this has to stop somewhere.

Other factors effect prosperity as well, such as environmental constraints; not just regulation that conservatives talk ad infinitum about. There are true constraints posed by the environment and the people living in that environment. Water shortages, lumber shortages, lack of space, traffic gridlock, you name it. Taxes are only one part of the picture.

Elon Musk has done a lot with his wealth to invest in new business frontiers such as Space X and electric vehicles. This is the kind of thing I can see as an argument for incentivizing investment in American business. On the other hand, it seems like most American business leaders and wealthy individuals are more risk averse.

The true bottom line should be quality of life which may, admittedly, be hard to measure. A good question to ponder is, are the wealthy helping us to do great things as a society or are they just hoarding money?

Lazy American corporations

A guest on Larry Kudlow was talking about lazy American corporations. Kudlow is conservative, mind you. Conservative or not, there's still worry that excess money, in corporations, might not go to investment in new "plant and equipment." It often, instead, goes into companies buying back their stock, buying each other out and paying bonuses to their executives. A "jobs recovery" will need companies to be willing to take risk, invest in new products, technologies and so forth.

The guest also mentioned that technology is often a "deflation factor." Yes, I keep saying this. Technology can bring down prices and wages due to things like automation. That's an issue the Trump people aren't dealing with very well. Deflation can be a good thing as it means more goods and services for less, but it's hard on businesses and workers when other things, such as housing and healthcare costs, keep going up.

One problem discussed is low interest rates and easy money. I think in many cases, there's an illusion of prosperity created by low interest rates driving things like the housing bubble while actual growth of things like manufacturing is lagging. Then one can also ask, do we need more manufacturing? Think about the environment and how many products we need. Also, technology is improving things; smarter instead of bigger, but technology has its deflationary effects.

As for companies being "risk adverse," that's a big problem. The companies will blame regulation for their risk adverse behavior. They have a point, but I think there's a lot more to it than that. Also, of course, we do want safety and a clean environment.

In my opinion, it seems like corporations run on fear, to a large extent. Fear that they will loose wealth. That's no way to kindle an exciting recovery. We need something better. I think business has it's place, but it's kind of a tired paradigm. There's a lot of things, besides just business, that can bring vitality to our communities. Volunteerism, quality of life issues, change toward healthier and more environmentally friendly things. New beginnings.

Also things like Co-ops and non profits, of which I recently attended the Bellingham Food Co-op annual meeting and party. See photos here and scroll around here.

Personally I don't hate the 1%. I just want a saner economy. Glad Sanders and Clinton are working together

Even though Clinton is a 1%er, herself, I (Robert) personally don't hate 1%ers. I just think we need better economic planning to not be afraid of raising their taxes. I would say (even though it isn't in this article) no more Grover Norquist (the guy having members of Congress sign that pledge not to raise taxes).

Article inspiring my comment, Sanders drags Clinton into his war on the 1 percent.

From article it says.

Sanders shook up the party with his rants on corporate greed and his calls for an expanded welfare state, but he still couldn’t displace the stolid establishmentarian who has served as Secretary of State, New York senator and First Lady.

Sanders does hope, however, that Clinton will join him in attacking America’s elites and pursuing ways to spread the wealth more broadly. “Hillary Clinton understands we must fix an economy that is rigged and sends most income gains to the top 1 percent,” Sanders thundered during his endorsement speech. “Hillary Clinton understands that if someone in America works 40 hours a week, that person should not be living in poverty.”

Also in article it says.

But the revolution against the 1% was misdirected in the first place. It’s not really the top 1% of earners who are capturing all the income gains in the US economy. Hard data shows it’s more like the top 40%. “The notion that only the 1% are doing well is ridiculous,” says economist Stephen Rose of the Urban Institute.” The real wealth gap, he says, is between the top 40% of earners, who tend to have the skills to succeed in the digital knowledge economy, and the bottom 60%, who have less relevant skills.

I see a lot of truth in economist Stephen Rose's talk about the 40%. It's the growing gaps between all income classes that's a big problem.

I'd add that rising house values can add significantly to the gaps. Gaps between renters and owners, more struggle for first time home buyers, gaps between regions.

Rather than just hating 1 class of people, we need better economic policies. Better distribution of wealth, better partnership between government and private sector, investment in domestic infrastructure and so forth.

Why blaming the one percent may not be that effective

Since Occupy Wall Street fame, the figure of 1% top income percentile has become a popular meme. Why 1% instead of 2 or even 10%?

1 is a small number so 1% is not that many voters. It's politically expedient to say you are for the 99%. After all, 99% is a mandate that will always win elections, supposedly, tho it often doesn't seem to work that way.

The one percent meme is another manifestation of our search for a painless solution to the problems of society. Government is one tool to solve problems, but taxes which fund the government tend to be unpopular. Therefore, the easiest political solution is to try and impose unpopular things, like taxes, on as few people as possible. If only the 1% has to pay a new tax, then the 99% of voters don't have to pay, so the tax should be able to pass. Right?

For some reason, that doesn't seem to be the case. Do the 1% have so much power that they influence media and voters to literally buy elections?

That's part of the problem, for sure.

Another part of the problem is the percentage of people in the lower 99%, and especially the lower say 50% of income distribution who actually vote. I hear that 2014 election saw the lowest percent of eligible voters to vote since 1942.

Blaming everything on the 1% is a way to absolve oneself of personal responsibility. If social change is to happen, we all have to do our part be it voting or what we support with our dollars in the marketplace. The wealth and power of the 1% still relies on the mass market of shoppers and voters.

What about the top 2%, 10% or even 20% income percentile? America's income gap keeps getting wider between all income classes. Upper middle class has gotten way out ahead of lower middle class and the poor. Why can't so many working people afford medical care, for instance? Are doctor and professional incomes way above what most working people can afford? There's nothing wrong with paying doctors more than average workers due to the education and skills required to be a doctor, but one must ask what's economically sustainable. As planning for affordable healthcare is considered, we have to take into account what is sustainable. What can the premiums, for insurance and/or the taxes for government based healthcare sustain?

Unaffordable housing is another issue that the income gap brings up. How can folks making minimum wage afford to live in a city like San Francisco? Is it the 1% who has bought up all the residences making buying and renting unaffordable for the bottom 50% in that city? San Francisco, supposedly a bastion of liberal politics yet about the most unaffordable city in America.

I'd say it's more than just the top 1% that creates the housing problem. How about the top 10%, or maybe even the top 20%? There are many high paid tech workers, and so forth, who can afford expensive housing. They have crowded lower income classes out of the housing market. Here, the problem is upper middle class. If there isn't enough housing, the upper middle class gets first dibs. That is except for subsidized housing and folks grandfathered into rent control.

So it looks like it's a broader problem than just the 1%. It's society as a whole; to some extent. Everyone has some responsibility. That doesn't let the 1% off the hook, but the problems can't be solved unless more folks take responsibility. Landlords, consumers and voters. We all can make the difference.

I've heard it said that if we just raise taxes on the 1%, there wouldn't be enough money to make that much of a dent in the federal budget. The 1% have lots of money, but there are not very many of them. What about raising taxes on the top 20%? That's a bigger chunk of money. That's what our graduated income tax did before the so called Reagan Revolution.

Maybe some liberals, not to mention conservatives, wouldn't like the idea of taxing the 20% because there is a lot of rhetoric, these days, about the need to strengthen the middle class. Quite a few folks talk about the need to support a large consuming class. As economist Paul Krugman says, mass consumer spending creates more jobs and jump starts the economy more than the wealth of the 1%. Still, I think the upper middle class could do more to bring a fairer society. Seems like the upper middle class is becoming wealthy while the lower middle class is becoming poor. The real middle, in the middle class, is getting a lot thinner. Income distribution is a problem within the middle class leading to affordability problems in things like education, healthcare and housing.

Even lower income people bear responsibility. How we treat one another and our voting patterns do make differences.

Another thing to think about is the natural environment. Middle class consumer spending isn't always a wonderful thing. One has to think about the the carbon footprint, for instance. Mass consumption of gasoline, cars, houses and products has to take the environment into account. Going more green is best in all these things.

Another consideration is not just how much money someone has, but what are they doing with their money. Is someone in the 1% donating millions to good causes, or buying Congress? Is someone in the top percentile building a business and developing new technologies or just buying luxury homes and bidding up the price of everything from real estate to paintings?

There is more to the equation of a better society than just deferring all responsibility to the 1%. Sure, the 1% should pay higher taxes, but it takes the rest of us voters to at least show up at the polls if we want that to happen.

Are the wealthy and business hoarding their money because too many restrictions or not enough market or both?

If the wealthy were to invest more in job creating activities, rather than just hoarding money, the economy would work better.

I'll add that people on the right tend to blame government and environmental restrictions. These things can prevent business expansion so the wealthy and corporations just sit on their money; rather than investing it in expansion. That could be true, but do we want to repeal restrictions? Some restrictions are there for good reasons like for safety and protecting the environment. It's one of the factors living on a limited planet.

Liberals tend to say that the lack of demand for products prevents business from investing in increasing the supply of goods and services. Workers can't afford to buy things anymore. Less middle class means less market demand. Also a valid point. To some extent, less demand can be good for the environment, but hard on an economy that is dependent on growth. An ultimate goal is to grow the economy in a way that does not harm the environment. At least grow the economy to keep up with population growth, but try to curb population growth as well.

Also, I might add, when the wealthy just hoard their money, they often put it in so called "safe haven" investments. One of the primary safe havens is US Government debt. So the rich are investing in US government debt and then many of them are turning around and complaining that the government is borrowing too much money. Go figure.

How about lowering corporate tax rate by raising taxes on wealthy people?

Uncle Sam balloon promo at car sales lot.

Some folks, especially on the left, lump corporations and the wealthy together. Corporations and wealthy individuals are different entities when it comes to how the economy works. Taxes paid by corporations tend to be just passed through the corporation and come out as higher prices for the corporation's products and services. They can also come out as disincentives for the corporation to invest in assets and employees within the taxing jurisdiction. The corporation isn't really a person, contrary to popular belief. It's just a go between. Corporations are a go between among various people in society such as consumers, shareholders and employees.

Some economists call for lowering corporate taxes in USA because this country is said to have a high corporate tax rate. A high tax rate creates disincentives for corporations to do their business in America leading to outsourcing of a lot of corporate assets and jobs. Of course corporations do get out of a lot of taxes by taking advantage of loopholes, but there are quite a few economists who believe that lowering corporate taxes would help the American economy. It would help by allowing vast amounts of the money that US corporations hold overseas to be brought back home. Some of this money would be paid in taxes during a windfall period as the money comes back home providing a temporary boost to the treasury. More importantly however, a lower corporate tax rate could create a greater incentive for companies to do business in America. More domestic jobs as business activity comes home.

Seems like most of the proposals to lower corporate tax rates are just more tax cuts so I say, how about accomplishing this goal in a more revenue neutral way? Lower corporate taxes while increasing taxes on wealthy individuals. Unlike the official corporate tax rate (aside from the loopholes) wealthy individuals are getting away with real low taxes in USA compared to other industrialized countries. Taxing wealthy individuals more and business less would create an incentive for the money to be invested in businesses, rather than just being hoarded. It could encourage wealthy people to invest their money in American business so that money could work in the economy. The money could go to creating jobs and business facilities in the US rather than just lining the pockets and overseas bank accounts of wealthy individuals. Let's have the economy spend more money on producing goods and services for the public rather than just buying things like luxury yachts and summer homes for the wealthy.

Problem is, so many of the wealthy and their pundits want it all. The seem to want nothing but tax cuts rather than accepting some tradeoffs.

Are Oil Company Profits Justified?

Yes there really is an oil company in Idaho named Stinker. Billboard seen near Lewiston, ID. on my 2005 bike trip around the Pacific Northwest.

The best way to deal with excessive salaries of corporate executives in most industry (not just oil) is to increase income taxes for the top tax brackets.

Oil companies are a good example of where personal income taxes can help the public sort out the economics. An oil company can have lots of capital expenses, like building new refinery capacity to keep up with rising demand. Profits can be invested into new refinery capacity, but they can also be siphoned off into executive perks.

Personal income taxes can discourage the perks while still allowing profits to be used for capital investment in the company. This might help our cynical public determine where the money is really going.

Many of the rising expenses of oil companies are legitimate, but when one sees the huge salaries paid to executives it creates distrust.

There are a lot of legitimate reasons why gas prices are rising. The world is reaching so called "Peak Oil" production. After this, production falls but demand keeps rising. Prices go up.

The best way to reduce oil prices is to cut demand. Not just US, but China, India and other places keep using more oil.

I'm sure you've heard all this before.

If we go into a recession, prices are likely to come down as demand cools. Prices would come down for a while at least.

Some right wingers say, "don't tax the rich, it will reduce incentive to get rich and bring on a recession."

Well, a recession can lower prices.

Here's one interesting aside. Not everyone's work is motivated by money. There are business owners who make less than their employees, but they are still motivated by the challenge of having one's own show. Higher income taxes might not always mean less incentive for this reason.

Becoming less dependent on oil is the best long term strategy for controlling oil price hikes. Being less dependent on automobiles would be a great help.

I've never driven a car. The bicycle is my main means of transportation. I always have to throw that tidbit of information in here.

For those who insist on driving, nuclear power and electric cars is one possible scenario. Another scenario is more solar energy and windmills.

Speaking of taxes, with-in our oil/car based economy, I've been hearing about some bad tax policies.

For instance, big tax breaks for SUVs.

They were talking about the tax break for SUVs on Gene Burns evening talk show over KGO radio (April 3).

Amazing what lobbyists can dupe Congress into. Tax incentives to buy SUVs which burn up more gas and lead to higher fuel prices?

Bad idea, but it does create jobs for someone. Detroit unions, automakers?

I hear that some recent survey showed the majority of Californian's say it is a good idea to base the price of car registration on fuel consumption. Guzzling cars pay more, fuel efficient cars pay less.

That's good, but here in Washington State, voters did the opposite a few years back. Tim Eyman's Initiative 695 attempted to lower license tabs to $30 for everyone; thus eliminating any difference between cheaper and more expensive vehicles.

Many of the more expensive cars are SUVs. That initiative passed with flying colors, but it's been modified by legislatures and local governments since.

Voters often shoot themselves in the foot. Washington State has also never voted for an income tax, yet people keep grumbling about the wealthy.

Hopefully Washington voters will be more enlightened in the future. Maybe bigger cars should pay more for license tabs.

Rather than basing license fees on vehicle cost (like was done in pre I-695 days), base it on fuel efficiency? Charge the gas guzzlers more? That's what the survey of (at least) California residents indicated, according to that Gene Burns show.

Of course some poor folks drive gas guzzlers as they can't afford the more efficient cars; especially the hybrids.

Also, now that the used car market is being flooded with gas guzzlers that folks are trying to unload, poor people are buying them.

People should just ride the bus or bicycles in my opinion.

My faith based tax initiative: Raise taxes, then allow bigger charitable deduction

Raise federal income tax, especially on upper middle class and the wealthy, then allow people to cut their own taxes with deductions for charitable contributions.

Raise the amount allowed for charitable contribution.

This way, taxes could stay low if people are willing to give back to the community.

I think people owe a debt of gratitude for the fabric of the communities they live in; especially well off folks who reap so much benefit.

Maybe they don't trust the government to spend their money wisely so let private nonprofit organizations do it.

This could be a diversified investment in our communities. Some of these non profits may be faith based so that is why I call this idea my "faith based tax hike initiative."

Are Corporate Profits Bad?

A better question might be, "what is done with the money from corporate profits?" Does this money just go to private incomes for fat cats or does it go into things like research and development? Is it invested in improving the corporation's infrastructure, or does it just go to a bunch of wealthy people to buy bigger "show boat" homes?

How the profit money is used becomes a more important question, in my mind, than whether there is a big profit, or not.

The tax system can address this question.

Assuming it is better to invest in things like "plant and equipment," "research and development," "job creation," "the community," rather than investing in fat cat people, the tax system can address this need.

Raise personal income taxes on the wealthy, but maintain generous deductions for business expenses, investments and charitable donations.

The important question is not "is there an excessive profit?" The question is, "where does the profit money go?"