Forget the big comeback; Detroit focuses on what can be saved

Comments (26)
morbas wrote:

Citizens are begining know the truth about government budgets — national, state and municipal.
The federal budget is $3.8 trillion. Federal plus state plus municipality is greater than $8.06 trillion. The sum total of all personal income is $12.98 trillion. Thus, the governments are operating at 62 percent of total personal income.
With a centralized banking system, the federal government can print more money than collected in revenue; states and municipalities cannot. Taxation at state and municipal levels is less progressive than federal, which burdens the lowest income levels with the highest effective rate; and the upper 2 percent with the lowest effective rate. Thus, municipalities borrow more in a recession, as the lower quintile’ wages are more diminished. We have cities falling into bankruptcy.

Cut paste post to your Senators and Representatives
-
Honorable Senator/Representative,
This is a mandate to: Nationalized income tax system that funds Federal, State and Municipalities $8.1 Trillion expenditures. A margin tax at two levels will yield the necessary revenue. %0-$20k 0% tax rate, $20k to $200K 35% tax rate, above $200K 91% tax rate. Remember the 1960 top rate was 91.5% at $400k, this effective rate is 66.6% at $500k, 31.5% at$200k; less than the 2011 single standard at under $200K. This change would require a constitutional amendment.

Thank you for your immediate attention,
Your constituent [Zip Code]
-

Let us get to a 90% mandate.

Feb 18, 2013 7:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tmc wrote:

@Morbas, you seem quite correct in your assessments. I doubt though that it would be that easy to fix. Our financial and governmental systems are not what they were, and what they were was not designed for this era anyway. The United States of Corporate America (USCA) needs to re-establish itself in a fashion that will move the USA forward as a leader in the 21st century.

Feb 19, 2013 6:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
tmc wrote:

I think 2013 and 14 will be the years for cities to collapse. Then in ’15 and ’16 States going bankrupt will be the issue. Maybe a bit longer, but not too much. Maybe into 2018.

Feb 19, 2013 6:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

@ morbus Spoken like a true collectivist. You forget that government is a black hole that only consumes. Without the private sector creating wealth government cannot exist. What you are proposing is what the (failed) Soviet Union did from 1917 through its collapse in the 1980′s. Now they are ruled by the tyranny of the privileged political class–and the general public merely survives. Even the Chinese realized they were a system destined for failure–so they implemented capitalism–and the European Socialist governments are pulling back as well.

You are living in the wrong country. If find it interesting that you site the Constitution to fit your needs–but we have laws (since diminished) regarding the taking of private property. Detroit’s failures are of their own making. Let them restructure and fix the problems past politicians created. It’s the only way out of the morass of billing the future for today’s consumption.

Those that do not know history are destined to repeat it.

Feb 19, 2013 9:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
susette wrote:

I really hate that the first thing anyone does to try to cut spending is lay off working people. One, now how will the work get done (In Detroit it is laughable because even when they are at the job, they are not doing any work), but there you go. Homes get foreclosed, properties get abandoned, welfare roles increase, crime increases, and there is no one in line to serve the underserved. Maybe everyone who has a job should shut up and DO their job, and then maybe there wouldn’t be such a huge resentment to pay them.

Feb 19, 2013 9:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

Mr tmc,
The $64 dollar question remains, did you post to your Representative and Senators?

This is my sense of our democratic republic problem:
Specialization breeds biases that ultimately aggregate as ideological discords. Democracy demands a generalized synergism to be greater than the summation of generalization(s). Society expects all earnestly responsible communication to be crispy brief, there-in lies the rub of the ideological phraseology biased discord. We must adopt generalities that ‘apply in every special case’ else we cause self extinction.
This is my sense of GOP greed:
The debt has one cause, the aristocratic view of superiority and exemption to responsibility, aye even subjugation of Christianity itself. They would rather mint Ceasar’s denarii and subjugate humanity to a slaves wage. The top quintile income wealth is over 60% of the national income summation. And yet we tax poverty levels to hoard even that last 1% of coin. And tax least at the highest income levels.
The House of Representatives has the authority of taxation and can look no where else to shed it’s purpose. “…that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;…”.

Watched Rachel Maddow showed ‘Hubris’ Monday Night. It was akin to my experiences, personalized by my better half’s ‘first responder’ involvements (three RED CROSS tours at Ground Zero NY NY). Nothing new to me, just a complete story, it will be a good ‘All About’ reference on my book shelf; lots of emotions about a major USA political failure. I cry out ‘where is the Justice for the effected people in this?
IMHO morbas

So did you post to your Repesentative and Senators?

Feb 19, 2013 9:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

@morbas You are correct, but the “aristocratic view of superiority” you assign only to the GOP is misdirected. Democrats seem to think their representatives are beyond reproach, when it is a fact that any and every “compromise” between the parties is always designed to first consolidate their power and influence–of both Republicans and Democrats. Those that look to government to solve all of our “problems” fail to acknowledge this single fact–and it’s the reason you have career politicians who come to Congress with zero wealth and leave as multimillionaires. And just where does that wealth come from? It’s the reason they never want to leave, and the agenda is always about their next (re)election. One is delusional if they fail to acknowledge that this is what politics is (first) all about, and the reason why term limits are the only viable solution. These same politicians learn their trade in the state legislatures–in CA, NY, IL and MA. Only the venue changes.

Case in point–just look at the “fiscal cliff” compromise and tell me who got the short end of the deal? The working guy took a 2% hit on EVERY payroll dollar, the “rich” took a 3.9% hit AFTER deductions. This was a “compromise” born of McConnell and Biden–and the President (“protector of the middle class”) signed off on it. So, who got the best of the deal–the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats! They solved “their problem” on the backs of the working man.

Feb 19, 2013 10:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

@morbas You are correct, but the “aristocratic view of superiority” you assign only to the GOP is misdirected. Democrats seem to think their representatives are beyond reproach, when it is a fact that any and every “compromise” between the parties is always designed to first consolidate their power and influence–of both Republicans and Democrats. Those that look to government to solve all of our “problems” fail to acknowledge this single fact–and it’s the reason you have career politicians who come to Congress with zero wealth and leave as multimillionaires. And just where does that wealth come from? It’s the reason they never want to leave, and the agenda is always about their next (re)election. One is delusional if they fail to acknowledge that this is what politics is (first) all about, and the reason why term limits are the only viable solution. These same politicians learn their trade in the state legislatures–in CA, NY, IL and MA. Only the venue changes.

Case in point–just look at the “fiscal cliff” compromise and tell me who got the short end of the deal? The working guy took a 2% hit on EVERY payroll dollar, the “rich” took a 3.9% hit AFTER deductions. This was a “compromise” born of McConnell and Biden–and the President (“protector of the middle class”) signed off on it. So, who got the best of the deal–the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats! They solved “their problem” on the backs of the working man.

Feb 19, 2013 10:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
Willie12345 wrote:

Detroit is just another Gary Indiana, but with more crime and city government corruption.

Feb 19, 2013 10:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
BlueOkie wrote:

Let’s send some of the 11 million illegals there. They want to work!

Feb 19, 2013 10:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
jdl51 wrote:

“People have an accurate historical memory that every single development scheme here has benefited the wealthy and harmed the poor,” said Howell, the environmental activist.”

The history of Detroit is white flight from beautiful neighborhoods because of crime and drugs. Those neighborhoods have been totally destroyed, not by development schemes, but by the people living in them who consider it more of a crime to snitch on someone killing their neighbor or burglarizing the house next door. Until the citizens of Detroit decide they’ve had enough of the neighborhood hoodlums and cooperate with the police, even if it means turning in their own relatives, it will never end.

Feb 19, 2013 10:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

I’m 81, lived in Detroit until I was 21 – during the “glory days” of the auto industry.

Individual responsibility and relf-reliance was the ethos of that time, but the public schools were teaching espiranto as the new “world language” and preaching collectivism as the new “right way” for “the Masses”.

We see the result.

Feb 19, 2013 11:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
hkrieger wrote:

Detroit as I knew it (Detroit, then and now):
www.efn.org/~hkrieger/detroit.htm

Feb 19, 2013 12:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Shamizar wrote:

There’s a Community Organizer in D.C. who might be interested in this challenge. His meager talents are completely inadequate for his current position, so he might be available to address Detroit’s plight.

Feb 19, 2013 12:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Corktown wrote:

Great article. much more balanced then any local TV or major newspaper.

Feb 19, 2013 12:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DetroitNative wrote:

As a Detroiter, born and raised, I can tell you that you can legislate all you want. You can invest as much as you feel you need to, and you can demolish whatever buildings need to go. None of it will help. Detroit’s culture, requires a massive evolution if the city and the population expect to survive. The city is plagued by broken families, a bad reputation for violence and murder that it earned and deserves. Gang culture is strong, and all too often the citizens of the city are way too complacent about the direction that youths take in life. Many streets are battlegrounds for power struggles between the new and the old gangs. Drug labs and abuse run rampant, and the government has encouraged broken homes by giving increased welfare compensation for fatherless homes. Until Detroiters stop blaming politics, recessions, and industry for their woes, they will never be ready for the real cure for what ails our city, a fundamental shift in the urban culture of Detroit’s citizens away from gangs, violence, and handouts. I’ve spent my entire life in this city, and you would be surprised how many folks can’t even be bothered to cut their own lawns. How can you fix a city, when the population refuses to help themselves?

Feb 19, 2013 12:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lensmanb wrote:

@morbus, 35% tax rate? I already pay 28%, work 1 full time and 1 part time job just to keep up with my mtg, utiliies and food. Skip my diabetes medicine a lot to make it last longer. 35%….up yours.

Feb 19, 2013 1:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
epeon wrote:

I grew up in Detroit. Moved to Texas many years ago and have done quite well. I have reached the age where I can live off my investments. My family is still in Michigan and I looked at Detroit. You can buy some really nice homes for a song. Not homes that are gutted, but homes built in the 20s and 30s that are still in good shape and were built for the auto execs at the time. Nice wood interiors, excellent homes. However, these homes have property taxes of $6000 to $8000 per year and the combination of Detroit and Michigan income taxes is 6.7%. So, if you live off your investments and you take $100,000 per year in taxable income, you are leaving about $15,000 per year on the table for living in Detroit. You can live in areas of Houston metropolitan area in nice homes with $2000 per year in property taxes and no income taxes. So, yes, that Houston home is going to cost you $200,0000 versus $25,000 for the Michigan home. But, in the end, the cash out of your pocket in Detroit is actually higher per month. And, with Houston, you avoid the crime.

Detroit just isn’t economically feasbile.

Feb 19, 2013 1:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tmc wrote:

Thanks moras, I very much appreciate your additional comments. I think I agree with your problem with our current republic. I don’t think in modern times, with the modern population (Pete might plug his book here) that the levels of synergy you refer to can be attained. Perhaps after the next long count? I also do not think that the politicians can really do anything about it. We expect to much from them too. As you said, society expects simple immediate answers to complex social issues… from them. They are not social engineering experts, economists, generals, Gandhi and your best friend all wrapped up into one. They are politicians. They are what society made them. So to answer the $64k question, no, I did not send anything to them. They cannot and will not help in these matters. An amendment to the constitution just seems like trying to stick another finger in the dyke to plug a leak. I don’t think there is anything that can be done to save some of our cities and even States form going bankrupt. I think we should plan for the aftermath and how we’re going to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

Feb 19, 2013 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dencal26 wrote:

Last GOP Mayor in Detroit 1957. New Orleans 1892. Chicago 1933. Either these people are blind or stupid

Feb 19, 2013 7:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The only way cities like Detroit and the country at large can get through this mess is to tax more and spend more. Americans have too much money as it is, money that is rightfully the government’s.

We need caps on wealth; everyone is only allotted so much wealth up to a certain point; no brackets or tiers. Any excess is automatically funneled to the government. This way, everyone is on the same playing field, wealth is more equal, and the government gets all the money they deserve.

The Constitution needs to be destroyed and the government allowed full access to everything and everyone. The government can then provide for us, nurture us, protect us, think for us, and dictate how we should live. No fuss, no muss.

Americans WANT this and we need to start making it more of a reality. As we know, the more money and power the government has, the better off people will be now and forever.

Big government is the answer folks. It always has been and always will be.

Feb 19, 2013 8:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The only way cities like Detroit and the country at large can get through this mess is to tax more and spend more. Americans have too much money as it is, money that is rightfully the government’s.

We need caps on wealth; everyone is only allotted so much wealth up to a certain point; no brackets or tiers. Any excess is automatically funneled to the government. This way, everyone is on the same playing field, wealth is more equal, and the government gets all the money they deserve.

The Constitution needs to be destroyed and the government allowed full access to everything and everyone. The government can then provide for us, nurture us, protect us, think for us, and dictate how we should live. No fuss, no muss.

Americans WANT this and we need to start making it more of a reality. As we know, the more money and power the government has, the better off people will be now and forever.

Big government is the answer folks. It always has been and always will be.

Feb 19, 2013 8:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The only way cities like Detroit and the country at large can get through this mess is to tax more and spend more. Americans have too much money as it is, money that is rightfully the government’s.

We need caps on wealth; everyone is only allotted so much wealth up to a certain point; no brackets or tiers. Any excess is automatically funneled to the government. This way, everyone is on the same playing field, wealth is more equal, and the government gets all the money they deserve.

The Constitution needs to be destroyed and the government allowed full access to everything and everyone. The government can then provide for us, nurture us, protect us, think for us, and dictate how we should live. No fuss, no muss.

Americans WANT this and we need to start making it more of a reality. As we know, the more money and power the government has, the better off people will be now and forever.

Big government is the answer folks. It always has been and always will be.

Feb 19, 2013 8:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

lensmanb wrote:
“@morbus, 35% tax rate? I already pay 28%, work 1 full time and 1 part time job just to keep up with my mtg, utiliies and food. Skip my diabetes medicine a lot to make it last longer. 35%….up yours.”

Sir: The 35% rate is margined, that is you do not pay on the first $20k, $40K if married. You do not pay sales, state income nor states-federal gasoline tax plus whatever industry tax burdens onto product costs. Health, Social Security whatever is bundled. The budget is balanced which means citizens are not further burdened by deficits.
Since this proposal beats the 2011 federal income rates at less than $200K your objection is questionable.
Now will you please write your representatives….

Feb 20, 2013 9:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
canadianeh65 wrote:

Flaming Liberal, I think you are mistaken. I’d be willing to bet a good sum of money that, if put to a vote, Americans would not support your proposal. I’d be willing to bet it wouldn’t fly in Canada either, and we’re way out in Left field compared to the USA.

Yes, there is a place for government in these matters, but not to this extent, in my humble opinion. (not that it’s worth anything because I am Canadian)

Feb 20, 2013 2:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
phamburg wrote:

A few facts for morbas:

(1) The upper tax bracket in 1964 (the year you’re probably thinking of) was 77%, on incomes over $400K. Inflation adjusted, that equates to an income of $2.85MM/year. From 1944 to 1964, the rate was 91% on income over $200K, but that still equated to an inflation adjusted income of ~$2.30MM/year. And no one even paid at those levels due to loop-holes and deductions. The leftist myth that 91% tax rates were sustainable in the past is pure fantasy. Forcing incomes over $200K to pay 91% tax in the year 2013 is simply ludicrous. No where in the world even approaches those levels, even France. Their 75% rate on incomes >1MM euros is not even in the same ballpark.

(2) The top 5% of the country makes ~32% of the income, but pays nearly 60% of the income tax. That’s well established. How much excess burden above their share of national income should they pay? Where does it stop? Should the top 5% make 30% of the income but pay 90% of the tax? You haven’t thought this through.

(3) In 1960, income tax accounted for 40.00% of federal revenues. In 2006, it accounted for 45.70%. Gasoline and excise taxes were higher in 1960 and accounted for most of that difference.

(4) In 1979, under leftist champion Jimmy Carter, the top quintile income earners paid 56.5% of the taxes. In 2005, the top quintile paid 68.9% of the taxes. Once again, I ask you: where does it stop? You’ve already gotten what you want, but it hasn’t worked. Perhaps it’s time for change in the other direction. You fool.

Feb 21, 2013 2:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.