Well this makes no sense.

The government needs to stop screwing everything up and just have a flat tax of say 15%. At the same time they need to stop getting involved with the market and let it do its thing. All these regulations and laws just get rid of the point of becoming rich. Why am I going to work 70 hours a week for 20 years to make a million just to have taxes take it away when I can be lazy and have welfare pay for almost everything?

none of that matters in the end. If you don't end the fed it doesn't matter how much you raise or lower taxes on anybody.

I totally agree with you but thats what I would expect them to bring with it. I would also say that people will be very vocal about loop holes. I still Personally  think 38 % for the very rich..close loop holes.  I will also say that I totally agree with you that tax's don't cut it. You have to break up the banks that own our economy. I would also not rule out more regulation to where it is needed. Lets also amend the 14 amendment that corporations are people. Last lets downsize our defense fund that has tripled since 2006. There is a lot of waste and money used on complete sh-t.

They only "need" more money because they spend more money. The size of government needs to be cut massively, they should be focusing on national defence, police/fire departments and maintaining roads/bridges (which should be outsourced privately of course). We need to get rid of social programs and government departments and just let the market handle everything. 

Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. I'm not against helping people in the slightest, but it should be done privately as you say, not through taxation. 

My ideal tax system (besides no tax at all) would be negative income tax.

We could have a flat tax of say 20% across the board (just throwing out a random number), no loopholes/exemptions/bullshit no matter what your income is, even if you make $1 you will be taxed 20 cents, if you make $100,000 you will be taxed $20,000.

Then after that everyone in the country is given say $10,000 (again, just a random number) to help out a bit. This would replace welfare, social security, unemployment insurance, and minimum wage could be lowered significantly (or completely removed).

The flat tax rate gives more incentive to work as hard as possible by getting rid of tax brackets, so you don't have to worry that if you work too hard that you will be moved into the next bracket and have to pay more tax.

There is a problem of the economic base now built on unsustainable debt.  Idea here isn't that America needs more shoppers (or less), but needs to have more people positioned to provide needed goods and services so that they can then be able to gain sufficient resources from the economy.  An economy is an ecosystem, where if things get off kilter, the entire economy can go in the tank, and even permanently.  And, unless the base of the population that makes up the economy is able to trial and error its way out of problems, you are looking at things being stuck.

A Flat tax won't cut it. Plus the more money you make the more of it you don't need or should put back into the system because the system helped you make that money in the first place. If you make 25 million a year I'm sure you could get by on 25% let alone 50% of that money, I would say a fair tax is 38% for the ubber rich. People that make this much, pay between 1-15% while that money they made caused how many millions in damage to the enviroment, Roads, Bridges, Drinking water, eco systems. You didn't make your money off your roads you paid for. everyone paid for them. Your money moves millions of products around on those roads and rails and what ever else. This stuff is not cheap.  So you have to put back into what has allowed you to make that much. Regulations are good in many area's, it's usually to protect the consumers or the welfare of other people. So you don't give a crap if people  catch cancer from plants that produce mass polution but only about how much you make.  LEts also consider a regulation that would stop mothers that are on welfare from having more then 2 kids and if so have to get there tubes tide to keep getting welfare. However if someone with more kids falls on hard times and needs help which didn't before, they should also do the same. This would stop people from being lifers on the welfare system. However if there handicap or have severe Disabilities Then we should be the people to say. I will help you because thats what america is about. not selfish people that could care less. If so, go move to a third world country that operates that way and plays favorites.

Plus I'm willing to bet that you are middle wage earner, which in this case taxing the rich, well bring you tax's down and your pay up or just bring your pay up. Because that money will be pumped into our economy in the form of infrastructer and putting people to work that are unionised, which make good money and great health care.  They can afford a nice life, not rich but good. This in turn gives demand for products and employment. Employers compete for you, giving you have the right skills.

TIme for you the 1% to pay. Only the greedy, greedy people own't agree with this action. I can tell who is in vgchartz.

The problem with his article is that it takes an ass-end view of empowering consumer demand in the economy. As a venture capitalist, I'm surprised he is taking a Keynesian, demand-focused view instead of supply-side.

After all, the creation of the supposed feedback loop is from R&D and creation of new products and services from capital, not just the typical exchange of services from business to consumer and vice-versa. Population and productivity constantly change, which demands new products and services are created to satiate those that are added to our population for both employment and material goods.

He also talks tax rates for the super-wealthy while totally avoiding the discussion of rates for the lower and middle class. He states that rates among the wealthiest dropped 40% in the past 30 years while totally ignoring the fact that rates dropped even more for those in the lower and middle class (60% and 50%, respectively).

Additionally, he makes the poor assumption that soaking the rich will magically solve the problem. It will not. The real, underlying issue with the lack of consumption is the rampant mal-consumption we've seen which has been mentioned - people are incredibly indebted to banks and the rich via the usage of credit both secured and unsecured. It is a significant drain on the economies of the poor and middle class when a portion of their income is taken away because of a house or material objects they bought on credit. If consumers drew back to savings rates and their earnings-to-debt ratio of the 1960's, they would have a lot more money saved back to purchase goods with, but now that money goes to Visa and Citibank.

These issues aren't solved by higher taxes. If anything, it'd be better to lower taxes and government barriers to the poor and middle class. Allow them the freedom to make larger and better choices for themselves in industry and education. That way, they can command higher salaries. Through that, the middle class will flourish and income inequality will shrink.

Will you provide a negative income tax on the poor to offset what they pay in taxes, or do you believe the poor should have their taxes raised, and the rich have their taxes lower?

As the article posted, it is hard to have the "market do its thing" when the population that makes up the market watches itself face an ever-decreasing standard of living.  Markets alone are not the answer.