Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Melody of Chaos

what do you guys think of the wall street occupation?

Recommended Posts

Why do we say that people who make less money than we do that don't spend that money are "saving" it but people who make more money than we do that don't spend it are "hoarding" it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capital gains taxes - that is, the taxes levied on investments - are set to go up in 2013. This especially hurts profit potential of long-term investments; it'll hurt short-term investments when it goes into effect, but it's already putting a damper on long-term investments that won't realize their gains until after the increased rates go into effect.

 

Federal and State Regulatory Compliance Costs have skyrocketed - further decreasing profit potential of investments.

 

ObamaCare's passing has increased costs of health care insurance by an average of about 9%. Also further decreases profit potential of investments.

 

The Fed is paying banks to NOT loan money. Actually, it's worse than that. The Fed is letting banks to borrow money from the Fed for nearly nothing, then paying them a higher rate if they do NOT lend it out.

 

 

 

The top 1% of American Taxpayers pay a higher rate - and a higher total percentage of the total tax - than the top 1% of any other industrialized nation in the world.

 

 

And the 51% who pay no taxes whatsoever say it's 'unfair'. Fuck them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty good article. The comments always make it. The charts say a lot, it's just how you look at it.

 

One of the primary complaints I've seen over and over the whole idea that the lowest X% have the most debt and the highest X% have the least debt. I don't understand how anyone can complain about debt, since debt is a choice, especially credit card debt. Yes, there is "legitimate" debt that people have incurred because they use their credit to get by when they are unemployed (or take out another mortgage or whatever), but what about discretionary debt, the debt that people incurred simply because they wanted that new TV or they wanted to go out to eat but it was several days until payday?

 

The point is, one of the reasons why people who have more money have less debt is not because they have more money. It's because they have less debt. The OWS folks have it all turned around, making the argument that because they're "rich" they have less debt and that's not fair. I contend it's the other way, that those who have more money have figured out that not spending money on crap they don't need and not overpaying for it over time, not spending loads of interest, and not paying minimum payments forever is what makes a person more wealthy. ANY financial adviser will tell you this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The top 1% of American Taxpayers pay a higher rate - and a higher total percentage of the total tax - than the top 1% of any other industrialized nation in the world.

 

 

 

This may be true for income tax, but not true once you calculate local, state, consumption taxes...etc.

Top Americans pay about 43% of their income into taxes, while Sweden is at 56%~ and Belgium at 60%~. On average a little more than half of the OECD countries pay a total tax higher than what America's top is paying. Also the top 1% of Americans do pay nearly 40% of all taxes and do receive only 27% of the tax expenditure benefits. On paper that looks unfair, but if you compare this to any other industrialized country, this is the best deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be true for income tax, but not true once you calculate local, state, consumption taxes...etc.

Top Americans pay about 43% of their income into taxes, while Sweden is at 56%~ and Belgium at 60%~. On average a little more than half of the OECD countries pay a total tax higher than what America's top is paying. Also the top 1% of Americans do pay nearly 40% of all taxes and do receive only 27% of the tax expenditure benefits. On paper that looks unfair, but if you compare this to any other industrialized country, this is the best deal.

It's true when you calculate all of the federal taxes including payroll taxes. Doesn't take into account local and state taxes. If you add state and local sales taxes, that hurts the lower-income people more... but that's offset to some degree if you then added in state and local property taxes, which overwhelmingly hits higher-income people harder. No studies include those factors that I know of.

 

Many other industrialized countries have a VAT, which hits everybody, but typically hits lower-wage earners more because they tend to spend a greater portion of their income. That's one of the reasons the US has the most progressive overall federal taxes of any industrialized nation.

 

 

NA-BL348_TAXES_G_20110502193003.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I believe you agree with me. Once all taxes all included, the rich in the US have it easier than other developed countries. Your graph shows federal income tax, which in the US is higher than most countries, with the exception of a few small OECD countries. This is easily made up in other taxes that are either not existent or substantially less burdensome in the US. For example luxury taxes on imports. Try bringing a nice car into Europe as compared to the US. Bringing a nice car in the US after emissions swaps and taxes tops out around 35k, as compared to over 100k easily in Europe of advanced Asian countries like Hong Kong or Singapore. In addition, the US has one of the lowest progressive taxes for many things outside of income tax. Get a parking ticket in many European countries and you pay for it depending on your income. Just about everyone will agree with overall income tax factoring everything, Americans have it easier than other OECD equivalents for the higher tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capital gains taxes - that is, the taxes levied on investments - are set to go up in 2013. This especially hurts profit potential of long-term investments; it'll hurt short-term investments when it goes into effect, but it's already putting a damper on long-term investments that won't realize their gains until after the increased rates go into effect.

 

Federal and State Regulatory Compliance Costs have skyrocketed - further decreasing profit potential of investments.

 

ObamaCare's passing has increased costs of health care insurance by an average of about 9%. Also further decreases profit potential of investments.

 

The Fed is paying banks to NOT loan money. Actually, it's worse than that. The Fed is letting banks to borrow money from the Fed for nearly nothing, then paying them a higher rate if they do NOT lend it out.

 

 

 

The top 1% of American Taxpayers pay a higher rate - and a higher total percentage of the total tax - than the top 1% of any other industrialized nation in the world.

 

 

And the 51% who pay no taxes whatsoever say it's 'unfair'. Fuck them.

 

The 9% increase in health care premiums that you cite are due to many things, only one possible factor is Obamacare. Health Insurance costs have been rising precipitously for a long time, and many theories believe health reform will help slow that growth. Don't try to bend studies to suit your needs.

 

As for compliance costs and capital gains taxes, this is only a reaction to the further aggregation of wealth, not all of it above board, that has occurred in the last five years. I can understand the viewpoint that just because the rich now control more wealth, they shouldn't contribute more to balance the budget, which of course is in the long-term good of all. That said, humor me....where do you and your wife get your health care/insurance from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One substantial difference between the and TP is that the TP has at least one concrete policy that they can stand behind. It's generally accepted that taxes exist, that they've been both higher and lower in the past, and that there is room for discussion on whether taxes need to be raised or lowered. Right there, the TP can get the conversation on the topic they want - tax rates. Even if you disagree with their 'lower taxes' position, the fact that the narrative is about the level of taxation is a big win for the TP.

 

It has the added benefit of being a regulation that can be easily changed. Simple topic (relatively), with a simple solution (if people can agree that the TP is right). Additionally, it's a change that is verifiable - that is, if the tax rate is changed, it's easy to prove that it had the targeted benefit - the tax rate changed.

 

 

OWS, on the other hand... when your primary policy point is a conspiracy theory that rich people 'control' politics, you have no basis for discussion. It's not generally accepted that rich people control politics, so they must first convince people that their premise is true. Only then can they move the narrative to the next assumption - that millionaire puppet-masters are a Bad Thing. Then, and only then, can they move the narrative to "doing something" about it.

 

And there they have another problem. How do you stop the puppet-masters? Laws that forbade corporate free speech just shifted the problem (if, in fact, there is one) to exempted corporations like News Corp and the New York Times. Or to the rich people individually.

 

Additionally, you can pass tons of campaign finance regulations, and you'll NEVER know whether they were effective, by the simple expedient that fantasy millionaire puppet-masters could be making behind-the-scenes cash donations that nobody ever knows about in exchange for votes that they desire. Can't prove a universal negative or something like that.

 

The OWS has several hurdles before they can sell their message (such as it is) to middle america. If they can't find a more concrete message, they're not going to accomplish anything meaningful. They can try to set 'remove corporate free speech rights' as their rallying cry (it has the benefit of being something easy to identify), but after the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United, repeal of corporate free political speech isn't going to happen via anything less than a Constitutional Amendment.

 

Oh, thanks fahr, for explaining how the two groups are SOOOOOO different. And i don't see how OWS confuses you.

 

OWS: generally protesting corruption. (and other dumb shit)

TP: generally protesting taxes. (and other dumb shit)

 

So really, we have two radically different groups with two different solutions to the same problem. One side is saying, fuck it - cut everything. The other side is saying what the fuck, fix everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a large chunk of people are kids, seniors, students and homemakers, can't expect them to be paying taxes if they making nothing or next to nothing.

 

The 51% is the percentage of filed tax returns that have a zero tax liability for the year. So that doesn't include children, seniors, students, homemakers, etc..., who either don't work, or are filed on somebody else's return. e.g. income from minor chidren who work are often filed on their parents' return, and most homemakers are included in a joint return with their spouse.

 

Included in the 51% is the approximately 30% of filers who receive a net tax credit - that is, they get more from the federal government in 'refundable tax credits' than their total liability was to begin with.

 

Back to the 'What do you think of the OWS crowd':

 

 

Apparently, they're not so good at math:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/12/technology/occupy_wall_street_demands/

 

The mere fact that the protest is still going strong after 25 days is means it has met one of its goals: Organizers said from the start that they hoped to sustain their demonstration for two months.

Maybe they're using metric months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be making comments about both the lack of legitimacy of the complaints, and about the dysfunction of the groups involved. The latter point is valid, the former not so much. While this ragtag mix of entitled children and hardcore lefties certainly is hurting the credibility of the movement somewhat, there's no denying that irresponsible, negligent (I'm avoiding saying illegal but...) behavior took place on wall street, which no one was kept accountable for. There is no reason to believe any steps were taken so this wouldn't happen again, and that's unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mere fact that the protest is still going strong after 25 days is means it has met one of its goals: Organizers said from the start that they hoped to sustain their demonstration for two months

 

That was means taken directly from the article. I don't think that the protestors actually say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was means taken directly from the article. I don't think that the protestors actually say that.

 

That's entirely possible. Which means that it's CNN fault.

 

Math is hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 51% is the percentage of filed tax returns that have a zero tax liability for the year. So that doesn't include children, seniors, students, homemakers, etc..., who either don't work, or are filed on somebody else's return. e.g. income from minor chidren who work are often filed on their parents' return, and most homemakers are included in a joint return with their spouse.

 

Included in the 51% is the approximately 30% of filers who receive a net tax credit - that is, they get more from the federal government in 'refundable tax credits' than their total liability was to begin with.

 

 

 

The majority of people do pay taxes. Many don't pay federal income tax (47% in 2010, 51% in 2009), but they do pay income payroll taxes, investment taxes, state taxes, and local taxes. The number of people who pay no income taxes/receive a credit was 15 million Americans in 2010 according to the tax policy center. That is about 10% of Americans who file that end up getting money back or getting off scotch free on income tax liability. So according to you, 90% of tax payers should have a voice on what happens. They key thing that republicans attempt to misconstrue is focusing on federal income tax alone when many people pay many different types of income taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They key thing that republicans attempt to misconstrue is focusing on federal income tax alone when many people pay many different types of income taxes.

 

The key thing is that no one is complaining about those other taxes that everyone pays but about the income taxes that nearly half of the US doesn't pay. It doesn't matter how you construe the argument, you can't gloss over that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to you, 90% of tax payers should have a voice on what happens.

 

I fail to see how, even with your twisted reality, how you could attribute such a position to me.

 

I want 100% of citizens who are legally-eligible to vote to have a voice in what happens, regardless of whether they pay taxes or not. Even non-citizen legal residents, or those who are ineligible to vote through various methods of legal disenfranchisement (e.g. age, felony convictions, etc) should have a voice to try to convince other people of their opinion (without, you know, the opportunity to elect representatives to carry out those desires).

 

But if you use your right to free speech to bitch that 1% of the working population pays only 40% of the total income taxes, while you pay nothing... on the grounds that it's unfair? You're an idiot. And you probably have problems with math. And logic. And the basic meaning of words.

 

If that's you, then yammer all you want, but nobody with a brain is paying any attention to you, except to keep an eye on your hands in case your pointless raging against the nature of reality gets violent.

 

Which pretty much sums up the Occupy Wall Street 'movement'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you use your right to free speech to bitch that 1% of the working population pays only 40% of the total income taxes, while you pay nothing... on the grounds that it's unfair? You're an idiot. And you probably have problems with math. And logic. And the basic meaning of words.

 

If that's you, then yammer all you want, but nobody with a brain is paying any attention to you, except to keep an eye on your hands in case your pointless raging against the nature of reality gets violent.

 

Which pretty much sums up the Occupy Wall Street 'movement'.

 

I doubt the occupiers are bitching about the 1% paying their fair share of taxes. Obviously you have yet to visit or even drive past a OWS camp as those complaining on the grounds of the 99% vs 1% argument is by far the minority. Though there is a large range of issues at many protest areas, the main argument is increasing wealth inequality. This is a problem in America as we are in the same GINI coefficient bracket (.45-.499) as the likes of China, Mozambique and our good neighbor Mexico. Simply listening to the news or getting a 3rd person account of how things are just makes you look uninformed. And unintelligent. And even though I paid around 10,000$ in federal income taxes last year, I sympathize for the Americans (not included are art majors and the likes) who are struggling and having a difficult time making ends meet. This country will only be as strong as our weakest links. Everyone has to start somewhere and this isn't the roaring 50s-90s where opportunity is at every corner. Sometimes the engine needs a tug or a kick to get it going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which pretty much sums up the Occupy Wall Street 'movement'.

 

No, cres summed up the OWS movement:

 

"While this ragtag mix of entitled children and hardcore lefties certainly is hurting the credibility of the movement somewhat, there's no denying that irresponsible, negligent (I'm avoiding saying illegal but...) behavior took place on wall street, which no one was kept accountable for. There is no reason to believe any steps were taken so this wouldn't happen again, and that's unacceptable."

 

I don't think the movement is about raising taxes fahr. Also, watch that youtube video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So an estate tax?

 

Hence I said we should focus on estate taxes in discouraging hoarding over generations.

 

No, cres summed up the OWS movement:

 

"While this ragtag mix of entitled children and hardcore lefties certainly is hurting the credibility of the movement somewhat, there's no denying that irresponsible, negligent (I'm avoiding saying illegal but...) behavior took place on wall street, which no one was kept accountable for. There is no reason to believe any steps were taken so this wouldn't happen again, and that's unacceptable."

 

I don't think the movement is about raising taxes fahr. Also, watch that youtube video.

 

The movement is a thinly veiled scream to redistribute wealth. No need to sugar coat it, others make more than you, protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well yeah, very likely that a lot of people at ows want wealth redistribution. but what is the MAIN reason they are there?

 

I think it's because wall street diluted all our valuable assets with so much shit that the market collapsed. Wall street was directly responsible for the recession but they are now thriving due to government assistance. I think people just want Wall street to take responsibility and fix the mess they created.

 

And nate, you have to admit it's a bit hypocritical to provide assistance to corporations but not people during a recession.

 

 

p.s.

 

my friend went their so I can actually confirm a lot people at ows are idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well yeah, very likely that a lot of people at ows want wealth redistribution. but what is the MAIN reason they are there?

 

I think it's because wall street diluted all our valuable assets with so much shit that the market collapsed. Wall street was directly responsible for the recession but they are now thriving due to government assistance. I think people just want Wall street to take responsibility and fix the mess they created.

 

And nate, you have to admit it's a bit hypocritical to provide assistance to corporations but not people during a recession.

 

 

p.s.

 

my friend went their so I can actually confirm a lot people at ows are idiots.

 

Only mindless followers would suggest that there isn't billions of dollars being thrown at lazy dickwads that sit on their ass as much as possible. Trying to say the US hasn't attempted to help people during a recession is stupid, they have tried to help, but what do you expect? Free money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×