From BUSH BUDGET DIRECTOR BRAGS OF SHIFTING TAX BURDEN TO RICH (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jb.htm):
The White House budget director Josh Bolten on Monday bragged to reporters how the nation most-wealthy will see an increase in tax burden under Bush's new budget.

"If you look at the president's tax cuts as a totality, the income tax, those at the upper end of the spectrum are now paying a larger share of the income tax than they were before," Bolten explained.

"An example, the top 5 percent in income in this country -- that's people making above about $140,000 -- without the president's tax cuts that top 5 percent would be paying about less than 52 percent of our total income tax revenue.

"After the president's tax cut that group is paying more than 54 percent of our total tax revenue. So the notion that the president's tax cuts have somehow made the code less progressive is wrong. The president's tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive."

Well geez, Josh, could that be because Bush reduced the total tax revenue? The rich could pay 99% of the total tax revenue; if that total is only a dollar then the tax cut is less progressive.

This is the kind of doublespeak that, when believed, leads directly to dictatorship. 52% of Americans, the Republicans, lap it up. I fear for our country. Being that my country is the superpower, I fear for the world.

What do you think?

why don't we just shoot rich people?... I still don't know why you think you're entited to take a higher percentage of people's money just because they have it. I mean... if we were in a huge war, then fine... but otherwise... A flat tax is the only thing that's fair... with the poor obviously excluded from paying anything.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

The rich got rich by paying less tax to begin with. Now they want the best of both worlds. That alone would be enough to make a flat tax unfair.

During their conversation the telescreen announces that the chocolate ration has been risen to 20 g a week, whereas yesterday it was cut down to 20 g a week. Winston wonders if he's the only person with memory that isn't inflicted by Doublethink.

:) :(

Yeah, a letter to the editor of my local paper noted how Bush touted in his State of the Union address the 2.3 million jobs created during his reign, conveniently neglecting to factor in the 2.8 million jobs lost.

Another reader noted that Social Security is not secure when the money is subject to the vagaries of the stock market, and pointed out that the Social Security Administration was created in response to a stock market crash.

Too bad only liberals can grasp these things.

The rich got rich by paying less tax to begin with. Now they want the best of both worlds. That alone would be enough to make a flat tax unfair.
nothing to do with hard work or talent...

The rich got rich by paying less tax to begin with. Now they want the best of both worlds. That alone would be enough to make a flat tax unfair.
Not paying taxes doesn't make you rich if you aren't making money to begin with, it simply allows you to keep what you earned. A flat tax with no deductions would probably result in the rich paying MORE since they're the ones who can afford to pay a team of accountants and pay off congressmen to avoid paying under our current insanely complex system.

Another reader noted that Social Security is not secure when the money is subject to the vagaries of the stock market, and pointed out that the Social Security Administration was created in response to a stock market crash.
Too bad only liberals can grasp these things.

Yeah, those evil conservatives, wanting to reform social security. Too bad the idea originated with FDR!

In an address to Congress on January 17, 1935, President Roosevelt foresaw the need to move beyond the pay-as-you-go financing of the current Social Security system. "For perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions," the president allowed. But after that, he explained, it would be necessary to move to what he called "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." In other words, his call for the establishment of Social Security directly anticipated today's reform agenda: "It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans," FDR explained. "What Roosevelt was talking about is the need to update Social Security sometime around 1965 with what today we would call personal accounts," says one top GOP member of the Ways and Means Committee. "By my reckoning we are only about 40 years late in addressing his concerns on how [to] make Social Security solvent."http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006262

What liberals never explain is how, if a wide index of stocks, bonds and government securities is a "risky scheme" where will they get taxes to pay Social Security benefits?

If the markets tank and corporate America goes under, there will be few wages to levy SS taxes on.

Liberals also ignore that nearly 7 million government workers are out of Social Security entirely. These are the same union members who lobby to keep everyone else in. They can have 100% of their money in the markets but we can't take a fraction of our SS bite out.

Doesn't seen fair to me.

Please... don't call them liberals... we're all liberals... they're socialists.

They stole the term from what we now call classic liberalism. And they made it a dirty word. So let them keep it.

They'll change their name again anways. See "progressive" has made a comeback. Greens hide what they are fairly well. The New Left has been pretty much exposed for the Soviet operation it was but still has some cache. Get a kick out of Schumer claiming his in "in the mainstream." Calling them socialists only leads to debate about the means of production.

"Liberal" has a nice FDR/LBJ/Ted Kennedy ring to it.

f' that, I want it back :) . They get to be called socialists. :)

I want to call my self a liberal... and as I republican, while we're discussiong things that have been stolen from us, I want my party's old color back. That's blue. You guys can have any color you want... you can go back to confederate gray if you like, but the Union blue is ours... you can french blue, navy blue, aquamarine... I don't care. We get the old Union blue back. I don't know when we lost it... but it was recent... and I feel robbed.

Love and peace (unless you don't give me the damn color back), Karmashock.

nothing to do with hard work or talent...

That’s only part of it. Another part is the tax rate they paid while they amassed their wealth. The lower the rate, the easier it is to become wealthy. If someone reaches billionaire status at age 40 and then wants to implement a change in the tax rate such that someone else who is equal (same hard work, talent, luck etc.) cannot reach billionaire status until age 70 due to a higher tax rate, that is unfair. A giant change in the tax rate needs to be phased in over generations to approach fairness.

A flat tax with no deductions would probably result in the rich paying MORE since they're the ones who can afford to pay a team of accountants and pay off congressmen to avoid paying under our current insanely complex system.

Not true if the flat tax rate is more than the rate the average rich person pays now after paying their team of accountants. The purpose of the flat tax proposals I’ve seen is obviously to lower the taxes that the rich pay, shifting that burden to the rest. For example, a 17% flat tax when those with an income of a $million annually pay an average of 25%, say, after all their deductions.

Yeah, those evil conservatives, wanting to reform social security. Too bad the idea originated with FDR!

I used Google to get your source for this. FDR is obviously referring to fiscally responsible reform, not reckless divergence from the program's core principle. Let’s dissect some other sentences therein:

However, there's a fatal problem with government programs like Social Security when they attempt to enforce an equality of outcomes: you get an average benefit level that's a lot lower than a comparable market-based system.

Well, duh, that’s because Social Security has less risk. Less risk, less gain. That is not worse. Social Security is all about minimizing risk to virtually guarantee a payout, so that seniors have a roof over their head if all else fails.

In today's economy, this gap has become so great that the floor on personal accounts is considerably higher than the ceiling on the 1935 version of Social Security.

Again, nothing amiss with that.

So, if everyone is going to be better off as a whole, what's the tradeoff with going to personal accounts? Well, for one thing, the potential for a greater inequality of outcomes -- which if you're not a card-carrying member of the Socialist Workers Party is something you have no problem embracing in most aspects of life.

I do have a problem embracing a plan that will put seniors back on the streets begging for alms, like happened during 1930s. That is why Social Security was founded!

In summary, the article is a bunch of conservative crap that is easily ripped apart logically.

Talk to your buddies in the Democratic party. They are the ones who levied punitive taxes the people they claimed to be for.

Think Bill Gates paid income taxes on the bulk of his fortune?

Why taxes must be lowered on high income earners is because many of them put it right back in their businesses to get the big return some day (or even to have a business next year).

Ever file a quarterly return? Not may who do are in favor of a graudated income tax. And fewer are who start from nothing.

the progressive tax structure is one of the biggest things hold people down. It doesn't peak at billionare level... it gets nasty once you start taking in a few hundred thousand... which is hardest on small buisness people.

What liberals never explain is how, if a wide index of stocks, bonds and government securities is a "risky scheme" where will they get taxes to pay Social Security benefits?

This liberal will enlighten you. A wide index of stocks has a lot more risk than a CD (certificate of deposit), say. In some decades since 1930 the major stock indexes went nowhere or even down, whereas a CD always goes up. Social Security benefits are paid from the taxes you put in, plus interest accrued from guaranteed (CD-like) investments. If your Social Security taxes were invested in the stock market then in some decades seniors would be begging for alms because they are not paid enough from Social Security to put a roof over their heads.

If the markets tank and corporate America goes under, there will be few wages to levy SS taxes on.

If a big asteroid hits Earth, there will be few wages to levy SS taxes on. Both are irrelevant.

Liberals also ignore that nearly 7 million government workers are out of Social Security entirely. These are the same union members who lobby to keep everyone else in. They can have 100% of their money in the markets but we can't take a fraction of our SS bite out.

Government workers make less salary compared to a comparable private sector job, partly in return for a pension plan that works like Social Security. They don’t come out ahead.

Doesn't seen fair to me.

My Dad made 50K in a government job that would have easily paid 100K in the private sector. He made less because he was a public servant.

Talk to your buddies in the Democratic party. They are the ones who levied punitive taxes the people they claimed to be for.

It’s not punitive if it’s necessary to pay the bills and otherwise fair. How was it not fair?

Think Bill Gates paid income taxes on the bulk of his fortune?

Sure. He pays a hefty tax on all monies that become available to him by his salary or by selling his stock.

Why taxes must be lowered on high income earners is because many of them put it right back in their businesses to get the big return some day (or even to have a business next year).

That’s an illogical argument. Why not lower the tax to zero then? And then give them a billion dollars a year. They’ll put it right back into their business!

Ever file a quarterly return? Not may who do are in favor of a graudated income tax. And fewer are who start from nothing.

I have filed a quarterly return and I am in favor of a graduated income tax. Why shouldn’t I be?

Zanket, Government jobs give you security that you don't get in the private sector. People working for governments or universities say they would pull down 100k jobs if they went out and competed for them, but I really doubt it. Perhaps the science professors, but that's about it.
The simple fact is this, in business there is a bottom line. There are budget pressures that just don't exist in the federal and state systems. Why do you think that unions have been getting destroyed and minimized in EVERY business and at EVERY level in the economy EXCEPT the government? You're not subject to market pressures. You're existing in an economic fantasy land like many of our large airlines. United is a good example. They've been on the government dole more or less forever... and their whole business model makes no sense now that they're being taken off of it. The union is getting hammered because the benefits are way too generous and they've hired far too many people. If the government were run like a business, they'd have half the staff working twice as hard... and that's without endless taxpayer backed benefits that go on forever.


Don’t kid yourself… government jobs are cherry.

the progressive tax structure is one of the biggest things hold people down. It doesn't peak at billionare level... it gets nasty once you start taking in a few hundred thousand... which is hardest on small buisness people.

You’re right, it doesn’t peak. It plateaus at a much smaller income. Saying it is “hard” has no significance. Owning a small business is hard. Paying bills is hard. So what? Should I pay more tax than what is fair to make their life easier?

Don’t kid yourself… government jobs are cherry.

I agree, before pay is considered. The cherriness is in return for the lower pay. I was responding to a comment that a government job allows wages to be put into the market. Well those are wages they don’t have. It’s not a better job; it’s just a different job and probably equal all things considered.

No, the Federal tax can and should be flat. Exclude those on the lower end completely. Cut all federal benefits except for insurance funds for disasters. All other things shall be handled by the states in their own ways. If they want full state socialism in one state, then go for it. If they want pure lasse-faire, then go for that. People have a choice that way and they can vote with their feet.


Furthermore, making it 'hard' to start a business is EXTREMELY significant. It doesn't show up right away, but after a generation economies get brittle if you do that. They must be fluid. Risk taking must be rewarded and if drain all the profit out at the level where businesses are hanging on the balance between success and failure you raise the number of failed businesses.

you want to tax the crap out of billionaires? Go for it... they have less money over all then you'd think and frankly they can take care of themselves. But you can’t just milk the upper middle class for all they’re worth. They’re the engines of this economy. Every dollar you take out of the economy is another dollar not invested back into the economy… this is true at the bottom and the top. The only difference is that the lower levels tend to just register as consumers and the top level tends to register as investors.


I know you're a big government welfare guy, but 'some' of us actually have to work at jobs that 'make' money instead of 'use' money up. Let us do our job so that we can pay your damn wage. Because if you squeeze us, the government jobs are not going to be spared. There is increasing bad will against such jobs… we see continuous expansions in government spending at all levels irrelevant of economic conditions. For those of us that are subject to market pressures, this insane. Just know that you’re not beyond such pressures… their effects are only delayed… especially if things go poorly. A good economy, means we might just ignore the government fat for a bit longer… if things get tight… that’s when the scissors come out.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

I agree, before pay is considered.
your benifits alone make up for that and the fact that you don't have to work very hard and have great job security makes the job cherry period. The fact that they have to hire about twice as many people to do the same job in government as do it in the private sector speaks volumes about government waste.

No, the Federal tax can and should be flat. Exclude those on the lower end completely.

Then you better hope you’re rich already. Otherwise you’ll become poor.

Cut all federal benefits except for insurance funds for disasters. All other things shall be handled by the states in their own ways. If they want full state socialism in one state, then go for it. If they want pure lasse-faire, then go for that. People have a choice that way and they can vote with their feet.

Hmm. Funny how the Republicans implement the largest government. Don’t you see how they are brainwashing you? The pump you full of this rhetoric and then do the opposite, laughing to the bank to cash in their payola.

Furthermore, making it 'hard' to start a business is EXTREMELY significant. It doesn't show up right away, but after a generation economies get brittle if you do that. They must be fluid. Risk taking must be rewarded and if drain all the profit out at the level where businesses are hanging on the balance between success and failure you raise the number of failed businesses.

Who has suggested all the profit be drained? Just a fair amount. Liberals want the amount of tax for everyone that is fair, not too much not too little.

you want to tax the crap out of billionaires?

Who has suggested this?

But you can’t just milk the upper middle class for all they’re worth. They’re the engines of this economy.

Who has suggested this?

Every dollar you take out of the economy is another dollar not invested back into the economy… this is true at the bottom and the top.

Are you suggesting that no money should be taken out of the economy as taxes to pay our bills? What would happen to the economy then? Well we can see what is happening, now can’t we? It’s not a pretty sight.

I know you're a big government welfare guy, but 'some' of us actually have to work at jobs that 'make' money instead of 'use' money up.

Sorry to pop your bubble... My favorite prez all but ended welfare and slashed government spending, to the chagrin of big government conservatives who have now gleefully reversed Clinton’s trend. Again this just goes to show that they have brainwashed you. Bush is spending money we don’t have like there’s no tomorrow. Clinton was the fiscal conservative Republicans only claim to be.

Let us do our job so that we can pay your damn wage. Because if you squeeze us, the government jobs are not going to be spared. There is increasing bad will against such jobs…

I work in the private sector, thank you. I even got the lion’s share of Bush’s tax cut.

we see continuous expansions in government spending at all levels irrelevant of economic conditions.

By Bush!

A good economy, means we might just ignore the government fat for a bit longer… if things get tight… that’s when the scissors come out.

Yes, I fully expect the next liberal president to slash the government that Bush is enlarging, just like Clinton did to Bush Sr. and Reagan's big government.

The fact that they have to hire about twice as many people to do the same job in government as do it in the private sector speaks volumes about government waste.

I agree that an all-out effort to streamline government should ensue. I await the next liberal president to work on that. He or she will have their hands already full though, correcting all the other messes that Bush is making.

Then you better hope you’re rich already. Otherwise you’ll become poor.
Nope. You don't have to raise taxes on the lower parts if cut the shit out of the system.
Hmm. Funny how the Republicans implement the largest government. Don’t you see how they are brainwashing you? The pump you full of this rhetoric and then do the opposite, laughing to the bank to cash in their payola.
Between placating the democrats, the recession, and the war we've had a lot... but over time all of this will save money or at least be a good investment.


Who has suggested all the profit be drained? Just a fair amount. Liberals want the amount of tax for everyone that is fair, not too much not too little.
Fair? Who decides that? Take your f'ing hand out of my pocket or you'll draw back a stump.
Who has suggested this?
You clearly think that hte more a person makes the larger precentage you should take... so the super rich should probably be sucker punched in the face and then taxed 100 percent... and maybe just left for dead in the desert... that'll serve those capitalists right.


Who has suggested this?
Progressive tax structure.



Are you suggesting that no money should be taken out of the economy as taxes to pay our bills? What would happen to the economy then? Well we can see what is happening, now can’t we? It’s not a pretty sight.
As little as possible. The federal government should be shrunk down massively. Anything outside of the military and foreign relations scrapped or parcelled out to the states.


My favorite prez all but ended welfare and slashed government spending,
Your memory and your civics are poor. That was the republican congress... and congress is the body that makes the budget. We still control it.

Yes, I fully expect the next liberal president to slash the government that Bush is enlarging, just like Clinton did to Bush Sr. and Reagan's big government.
The welfare state is dead... it just doesn't know it yet.

The problem with no government

If government is bad, why not do away with it entirely? Why not have no government at all, as in Somalia? That works pretty well, doesn't it?

Africa may be unimaginably remote; what about 19th century America? Didn't we try laissez-faire capitalism, and wasn't it a disaster? Filth in our meat, shantytowns, racism, 'No Irish need apply', company towns, union-busting goons, monopolies, corruption scandals, a punishing business cycle, old folks living in poverty, failing banks, Boss Tweed, gunboat diplomacy.

The solution to most of those problems was government: food and drug regulation; anti-trust laws; banking regulations; labor laws; the Fed; Social Security. We can hardly understand why many Russians want to go back to Communism, and yet we seem to want to go back to laissez-faire capitalism.

This notion that government is bad is peculiarly American. (Even conservatives in Europe bemoan the rich/poor gap, and recognize an important role for government.) The paradox is that only people with a pretty good government could come up with such an absurdity. When you really have a bad government, it's obvious that you need reform, not anarchy.

The heaven for the anti-government theorists should be something like the informal market in Peru-- not the drug trade, but the unregulated vendors who constitute most of Peru's housing, transportation, and retail industries. They don't pay taxes; they're largely unaffected by government regulations. Are they thriving, then?

Not at all. First off, being outside the officially sanctioned market, they're cut off from the protection of the courts. You can't prudently make large business deals, because your contracts can't be enforced. This greatly limits who you can deal with, and how big you can grow your business. Consumers don't have protection against fraud, or unsafe or unhealthy business practices; and businesses that people don't trust don't grow too big either.

Informal businesses are also cut off from the banking industry, so their access to capital is limited. Title to land is insecure, further reducing economic security and opportunities for investment. Violence and crime, uncontrolled by the police, are endemic. Fraud is commonplace; the money you put in the bank may disappear tomorrow as the bank collapses or the directors take the money and run.[5]
http://www.zompist.com/gummint.html

Nope. You don't have to raise taxes on the lower parts if cut the shit out of the system.

Obviously won’t happen by a conservative prez.

Between placating the democrats, the recession, and the war we've had a lot... but over time all of this will save money or at least be a good investment.

Placating the fiscally conservative democrats? The recession worsened by Bush. The unnecessary war created by Bush. “This” will not save money during a conservative presidency because it won’t be implemented. The opposite is being implemented.

Fair? Who decides that? Take your f'ing hand out of my pocket or you'll draw back a stump.

Illogical. Obviously there is a fair amount. The majority decides it. Right now they have obviously decided unfairly because they are deferring the bulk of the bills to future generations.

You clearly think that hte more a person makes the larger precentage you should take... so the super rich should probably be sucker punched in the face and then taxed 100 percent... and maybe just left for dead in the desert... that'll serve those capitalists right.

Not my thoughts. Taxed at 40% is okay.

Progressive tax structure.

40% is not “all their worth.”

As little as possible. The federal government should be shrunk down massively.

Then vote for a liberal = fiscal conservative. Arnold is a democrat in all but name.

Anything outside of the military and foreign relations scrapped or parcelled out to the states.

Why not the military too? We obviously have too large a military, seeing as how it has time to fight for profit for the Republican elite.

Your memory and your civics are poor. That was the republican congress... and congress is the body that makes the budget. We still control it.

Clinton gets most of the credit. He spent a large part of his time pushing for a balanced budget. I don’t see Bush doing that. Didn’t see Bush Sr. or Reagan do that. If the Republican congress is solely responsible then why are they doing the opposite now that they have the white house too? Clinton just gave them a reason to obey—if they did what he requested then they could garner some glory since they wouldn’t get anything else they wanted without overcoming the hurdle of Clinton’s veto. That hurdle was bigger then and Clinton wasn’t shy about using a veto.

The welfare state is dead... it just doesn't know it yet.

As I said, Clinton all but ended it. Only the hardest-luck cases get welfare now.

Repo Man...oh...that notorious "Robber Baron" era we read about in gubbermints school. Terrible time! More people rose from a subsistence living to the middle class than ever in world history. Back then, a person entering the workforce in 1870 saw his real wages rise 5% a year--for the next 30 years. Brrr.....

Far as your claim about those wanting limited government and so why not be like Somalia. Well, it is just silly.
Type of dishonest, false reasoning taught in gubbermint schools.

The problem with no government

Good post.

The biggest problem I see with “no government” is that Republicans actually believe their party’s claim to support less government. The Republican elite loves big government. That’s how they shift taxpayer money into their pockets. They only say they are for smaller government to get the votes from the fools.

Republicans hate to pay for welfare. But they have no problem paying for prisons, maybe because of the payoffs from prison related industries. But it is much cheaper to give someone a basic subsistence living in cheap housing and foodstamps than it is to keep them in prison. And all too often, those who are unable or unwilling to work end up in prison when cut off from welfare.

Maybe the satisfaction of their punitive urge allows Republicans to overlook the increased costs of keeping people in prison over keeping them on welfare.

Not true if the flat tax rate is more than the rate the average rich person pays now after paying their team of accountants. The purpose of the flat tax proposals I’ve seen is obviously to lower the taxes that the rich pay, shifting that burden to the rest. For example, a 17% flat tax when those with an income of a $million annually pay an average of 25%, say, after all their deductions.
Well, for instance, John Kerry paid less than 12% income tax last year thanks to his team of accountants. I'm sure a flat tax would ask a bit more of him. Furthermore, all the money spent avoiding punitive taxes could be put to more productive uses to the benefit of all concerned, except tax accountants.

Republicans hate to pay for welfare. But they have no problem paying for prisons, maybe because of the payoffs from prison related industries. But it is much cheaper to give someone a basic subsistence living in cheap housing and foodstamps than it is to keep them in prison. And all too often, those who are unable or unwilling to work end up in prison when cut off from welfare.

You can't get welfare long term now if you are able-bodied. Clinton realized that it is even cheaper to make welfare temporary and force people to work, imprisoning the criminal remainder.

Well, for instance, John Kerry paid less than 12% income tax last year thanks to his team of accountants.

That’s a sample of one. He had a deduction that put him below average. The average the wealthy pay is more than the flat tax rate proposed.

Furthermore, all the money spent avoiding punitive taxes could be put to more productive uses to the benefit of all concerned, except tax accountants.

I don’t like the accountancy burden either. It’s insane. We spend some 3% of the GNP on accounting. Some 600,000 accountants. As a fix I like a national sales tax, also with no deductions. Then the rich pay their fair share.

Bill clinton did not balance the budget. He was just there when the reps took power and he didn't have a damn f'ing choice. He put his finger up, felt which way the wind was blowing, and then pretended that it was his idea.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-08-98.html

Yes Muhlenberg, I'm sure all talk of union slaughters, child labor, poor working conditions is all propaganda.

Many workers benefited from the prevailing good times. Industrial workers' average annual real wages (defined, that is, in terms of actual purchasing power, after allowing for inflation) rose from $532 in the late nineteenth century to $687 by 1915.

In railroading and other unionized industries, wages climbed still higher. But even with the dollar's buying power many times greater than today (a loaf of bread cost seven cents in 1915), such wages could still barely support a family and left little cushion for emergencies.

But...
Child-labor statistics are imprecise, but the available data suggest that in 1910 the nonfarm labor force included at least 1.6 million children aged ten to fifteen--15 percent of that age group--working in factories, mills, tenement sweatshops, and street trades such as shoe shining, flower selling, and newspaper vending.

The total may have been higher, since many of the "women workers" listed in the census were in fact young girls. One investigator found a girl of five working at night in a South Carolina textile mill.

For all laborers, the hours were long and the hazards great. Despite the 8-hour movement of the 1880s, the average worker in 1900 still toiled 9 1/2 hours a day, and much longer in certain industries. Some southern textile mills required workdays of 12 and even 13 hours.

The Triangle fire was a particularly gruesome reminder of the unsafe conditions in many industries. Few employers accepted responsibility for work-related accidents and illnesses. Vacations and retirement benefits were practically unheard of. With rare exceptions, American capitalism extracted the maximum of labor from its work force and gave a bare minimum in return.
http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/progre~1.htm

Let us return to that magical time.

Somalia may be a bit of a strawman, probably why the author didn't offer it as a serious example. But Upton Sinclair's The Jungle struck enough of a chord as to cause legislative reform. We do not want to go back to those sort of working conditions. Things are much better now, and that is partly due to government reform paid for with our tax dollars.

Zanket is right, there are the wealthy here who enjoy the benefits of infrastructure, both legal and physical, an educated population, etc., and grow wealthy by using them. Then they do not want to pay their fair share. It's called greed, and most humans are that way by default.