On November 19 2011 00:42 mechavoc wrote: So OWS is about income redistribution? That is not something I can get behind as it is down right silly. Unlike election reform which I find makes much more sense.
I'm assuming once they have taken the money from the 1% they will also be giving up their Starbucks, Prius, I-phones and hipster scarves to provide potable drinking water for those in the Sudan. After all almost 100% of the people lucky enough to win the birth lottery and be born in America are in the top 1% worldwide.
So if it is a good and proper thing to redistribute the wealth of the top 1% in America it should be good and proper to redistribute 1% worldwide.
If we do this however we will no longer have a team liquid site as luxury items such as computers and SC2 are a bit too expensive to provide for all 7 billion humans around the globe. If this happens I will miss you all, but I will congratulate you on making a better more equal world.
edit: verb usage correction
Income redistribution is already occurring, it just needs to be going the other direction. Are you really fine with the average person getting less and less money every year while the wealthy who do nothing with their a high amount money get more and more every year? This is awful for the economy and the government.
And the whole worldwide analogy is just ridiculous since most of the world's population doesn't even have means to use the wealth that they would get. Not to mention, most of those people are already happier than Americans are. Lets not spread our shitty, stressful, lifestyles to them.
So they are happier even having less money... perhaps we just need to make the 99% of people in the Western world even poorer so that they can be happy and give up their shitty, stressful lifestyles. (the 1% of those in the Western world can suffer the burden of accumulating all the unhappy wealth) .[/sarcasm]
If the 1% of the US should be giving up their money for the 99% of the US, then the 1% of the world (people over ~50,000 income ie the US and other western nations) should do it for the 99% of the world.
We are already stuck here, its not that easy to transition backward.
The whole "world" argument is just not applicable when talking about a US (or Western world) related issue. Please stop bringing it up.
And no one is saying that the top 1% of Americans should give up all of their money instantly. They should still be in the top 1% after a wealth redistribution has occurred over some number of years. They will still be wealthy and they will still have more money than they need. Most people are giving up more and more of their paychecks every year in taxes and insurance costs, so why can't extremely wealthy people be doing the same (except more)?
It's interesting that the CNN interviewer was so surprised that he didn't get into trouble: (paraphrased)
Interviewer: you're with us today...are you in any trouble? Makana: I hope not... why? I Was just singing. if I'm in trouble for singing, we have major troubles.
Imagine you invite 4 friends to eat a pie, you cut it in 5 pieces, give 1 to your 4 friends and keep 4 for you alone. It would be ok if the pie could grow bigger, but it's no longer possible.
That's the world we're living in.
I'm not saying i have the ultimate solution for this, but to me, it looks a bit broken as a logic.
On November 19 2011 01:12 oHInsane wrote: I will just put my thoughts here:
Imagine you invite 4 friends to eat a pie, you cut it in 5 pieces, give 1 to your 4 friends and keep 4 for you alone. It would be ok if the pie could grow bigger, but it's no longer possible.
That's the world we're living in.
It's more like you and your friends bought a peace of pie then cut it up into 10 pieces now you could eat you pie not or save it for later, so you convince a friend and you both sell your 4 pieces of pie to your other friends with the addition of 60 more pieces of pie over a 6 month period to which you get from the store at a discount, your friend insures that the 60 pieces of pie will be moved and insures it with 30 more pieces of pie to which he splits up the cost among his 4 other friends who each have 4 friends to which those 4 other friends also cut up their cost of insuring it by splitting up the risk among each other all based on the idea that they vouched for those first 4 friends, all your friends have to do it return your pies at a actually nvm fiscal practices in metaphor form just makes me want a punch an investment banker.
On November 18 2011 17:30 Velr wrote: It's staggering...
175 pages int his tread.. Still people coming in: "I dun know what it's all about, they are just sitting in parks?"
Seriously, it's so EASY to find out what this is about and i can't see a reason to not "get" it or at least find it.
Its because the whole movement is so ambigious and vague. Anyone you ask what its all about just says something like 'its a bunch of protesters complaining about wall street corporates abusing the system'. But it doesn't specify what exactly, who exactly, or even directly what is the problem/abuse anyways.
The lack of a cohernet ONE idea that can define the "movement" should not only be expected, but wanted. The only thing that can define it is that the current state of affairs is not how it should be. Those that argue for a free market should understand that the market is not free. For the regulations in each industry are defined by those that they would effect. Which of course, input should be taken from these parties as they know the industry far better then we would. But the balance is to far in the favour of the company and not the people. And wealth redistribution is seen as so black and white by both parties. It is not as simple as to just take money, and give it to others. But on the flip side to see the wealth inequality and say everything is fine is a bad end product of society.
Nothing will ever change if any moderate idea is blown to extremes, doom saying to keep anything from changing. And any civilised discussion will never happen while politicians protect those who pay them.
On November 19 2011 01:12 oHInsane wrote: I will just put my thoughts here:
Imagine you invite 4 friends to eat a pie, you cut it in 5 pieces, give 1 to your 4 friends and keep 4 for you alone. It would be ok if the pie could grow bigger, but it's no longer possible.
That's the world we're living in.
I'm not saying i have the ultimate solution for this, but to me, it looks a bit broken as a logic.
On November 19 2011 00:42 mechavoc wrote: So OWS is about income redistribution? That is not something I can get behind as it is down right silly. Unlike election reform which I find makes much more sense.
I'm assuming once they have taken the money from the 1% they will also be giving up their Starbucks, Prius, I-phones and hipster scarves to provide potable drinking water for those in the Sudan. After all almost 100% of the people lucky enough to win the birth lottery and be born in America are in the top 1% worldwide.
So if it is a good and proper thing to redistribute the wealth of the top 1% in America it should be good and proper to redistribute 1% worldwide.
If we do this however we will no longer have a team liquid site as luxury items such as computers and SC2 are a bit too expensive to provide for all 7 billion humans around the globe. If this happens I will miss you all, but I will congratulate you on making a better more equal world.
edit: verb usage correction
Income redistribution is already occurring, it just needs to be going the other direction. Are you really fine with the average person getting less and less money every year while the wealthy who do nothing with their a high amount money get more and more every year? This is awful for the economy and the government.
And the whole worldwide analogy is just ridiculous since most of the world's population doesn't even have means to use the wealth that they would get. Not to mention, most of those people are already happier than Americans are. Lets not spread our shitty, stressful, lifestyles to them.
So they are happier even having less money... perhaps we just need to make the 99% of people in the Western world even poorer so that they can be happy and give up their shitty, stressful lifestyles. (the 1% of those in the Western world can suffer the burden of accumulating all the unhappy wealth) .[/sarcasm]
If the 1% of the US should be giving up their money for the 99% of the US, then the 1% of the world (people over ~50,000 income ie the US and other western nations) should do it for the 99% of the world.
We are already stuck here, its not that easy to transition backward.
The whole "world" argument is just not applicable when talking about a US (or Western world) related issue. Please stop bringing it up.
And no one is saying that the top 1% of Americans should give up all of their money instantly. They should still be in the top 1% after a wealth redistribution has occurred over some number of years. They will still be wealthy and they will still have more money than they need. Most people are giving up more and more of their paychecks every year in taxes and insurance costs, so why can't extremely wealthy people be doing the same (except more)?
The whole world argument is pretty applicable, So it seems reasonable to bring it up again and again. People want to take from others to get what they want simple as that, the 1% want it the 99% want it. We all want a better standard of living.
So it is hypocritical to say well we already enjoy being in the top 1% world wide and can't go backwards as I really love my PS3 and Flatscreen TV,but those millionaires really should be sacrificed so I can get 4 years of free college and maybe a little bigger flat screen TV.
This nasty little bit of hypocricy is why I think the OWS movement would be much better served if they focused on a single obtainable goal like election reform. Atleast with that they can maintin the integrity of their message.
On November 18 2011 23:35 Velr wrote: Your logic would be flawless...
If the guys in charge would not earn millions upon millions from the according to you "not too expensive products" and go isntantly bankrupt with a more even payout distribution... but it's even worse, they even earn millions by just having millions on their banks doing nothing themselves to earn this money...
I don't care if you up the taxes or the payouts among "low-tier" employees... The inequality is just bad for the state, bad for business and bad for the marked... The only people profiting from the inequality are the (too) wealthy.
So wealth redistribution, basically. Take from the haves, give to the have-nots, using the force of government. I'm sure we've been around this over and over again through this thread, but its also one of the only concrete, actionable demands I've seen anyone bring up for OWS.
I'm also a bit puzzled about your complaint about them having "millions on their banks," saving and investing is a bad thing now? I mean I know that's the agenda the administration has been pursuing, but I was raised to believe that savings are a positive thing.
I do not know if you can really call it wealth redistribution. Income is taxed and not wealth. I do not think anyone is really suggesting actual wealth redistribution, so OWS is not really as radical and communist as you want to paint them. Compare what you are decrying as wealth redistribution to what happened in Germany between 1948 and 1978: over those thirty years, everyone had to pay 50 % of their wealth into a fund that payed out for anyone damaged in the war. Every year, you had to give up 1.67 % of your wealth. In the calculations, the worth of any real estate you owned was included, so without enough income, you perhaps had to take out loans to be able to pay and it really did hurt. Laws like this were backed by the conservatives, not only the socialists, so I guess German conservatives of that time would be seen as crazy communists in the US?
On November 19 2011 01:12 oHInsane wrote: I will just put my thoughts here:
Imagine you invite 4 friends to eat a pie, you cut it in 5 pieces, give 1 to your 4 friends and keep 4 for you alone. It would be ok if the pie could grow bigger, but it's no longer possible.
That's the world we're living in.
I'm not saying i have the ultimate solution for this, but to me, it looks a bit broken as a logic.
This logic is just plain false because we do not live in a zero sum world. Each of us adds value with the work we do.
Someone adds value by picking the apples, by milling the flower, by building that over, by combining the ingredients to make the pie.
The conflict comes in the value of work done. Anyone and everyone has the skills required to pick an apple. A smaller subset of people can figure out how to build the oven to bake the pie, or how to combine the ingredients to make the most delicious apple pie.
So since fewer people can perform those tasks, they become more valuable and then we have the unequal distribution of wealth.
And in the case you show above if your friends simply show up to your house and had nothing to do with making the pie while it would be rude to only share 1 piece with them at the end of the day they are 1 piece of pie richer and did nothing to deserve it.
On November 18 2011 23:35 Velr wrote: Your logic would be flawless...
If the guys in charge would not earn millions upon millions from the according to you "not too expensive products" and go isntantly bankrupt with a more even payout distribution... but it's even worse, they even earn millions by just having millions on their banks doing nothing themselves to earn this money...
I don't care if you up the taxes or the payouts among "low-tier" employees... The inequality is just bad for the state, bad for business and bad for the marked... The only people profiting from the inequality are the (too) wealthy.
So wealth redistribution, basically. Take from the haves, give to the have-nots, using the force of government. I'm sure we've been around this over and over again through this thread, but its also one of the only concrete, actionable demands I've seen anyone bring up for OWS.
I'm also a bit puzzled about your complaint about them having "millions on their banks," saving and investing is a bad thing now? I mean I know that's the agenda the administration has been pursuing, but I was raised to believe that savings are a positive thing.
You see using the force of government to tax haves and give to have nots as a bad thing. I see haves lobbying and buying politicians to dictate bills which would effect them in their favour as bad. Because the senate declaring pizza sauce a vegatable and keeping fries in school lunches rather then find healthier alternatives comes at the beckon of those who make these goods, not the betterment of the people.
Actually I see both of those as bad things. I'm not too hysterical about the pizza thing, though, since tomato paste is already considered a vegetable, all they did was redefine how much of it constitutes a single-serving.
What's it matter, anyway? You think kids are actually going to eat lima beans with their school lunches? This whole obesity panic is getting out of control.
On November 19 2011 00:56 silent_marauder24 wrote: And on my own tangent, too many associate a small business owner with the owners of large corporations. Most of whats gained any traction before being shot down in the house or senate would not effect small business owners personal income.
On November 19 2011 00:42 mechavoc wrote: So OWS is about income redistribution? That is not something I can get behind as it is down right silly. Unlike election reform which I find makes much more sense.
I'm assuming once they have taken the money from the 1% they will also be giving up their Starbucks, Prius, I-phones and hipster scarves to provide potable drinking water for those in the Sudan. After all almost 100% of the people lucky enough to win the birth lottery and be born in America are in the top 1% worldwide.
So if it is a good and proper thing to redistribute the wealth of the top 1% in America it should be good and proper to redistribute 1% worldwide.
If we do this however we will no longer have a team liquid site as luxury items such as computers and SC2 are a bit too expensive to provide for all 7 billion humans around the globe. If this happens I will miss you all, but I will congratulate you on making a better more equal world.
edit: verb usage correction
Income redistribution is already occurring, it just needs to be going the other direction. Are you really fine with the average person getting less and less money every year while the wealthy who do nothing with their a high amount money get more and more every year? This is awful for the economy and the government.
And the whole worldwide analogy is just ridiculous since most of the world's population doesn't even have means to use the wealth that they would get. Not to mention, most of those people are already happier than Americans are. Lets not spread our shitty, stressful, lifestyles to them.
That's not actually happening. The wealthy may be benefitting more, but the average person has gotten wealthier over time. If you want to stick to US only, ~380k/year puts you into the top 1% of earners.
On November 18 2011 23:35 Velr wrote: Your logic would be flawless...
If the guys in charge would not earn millions upon millions from the according to you "not too expensive products" and go isntantly bankrupt with a more even payout distribution... but it's even worse, they even earn millions by just having millions on their banks doing nothing themselves to earn this money...
I don't care if you up the taxes or the payouts among "low-tier" employees... The inequality is just bad for the state, bad for business and bad for the marked... The only people profiting from the inequality are the (too) wealthy.
So wealth redistribution, basically. Take from the haves, give to the have-nots, using the force of government. I'm sure we've been around this over and over again through this thread, but its also one of the only concrete, actionable demands I've seen anyone bring up for OWS.
I'm also a bit puzzled about your complaint about them having "millions on their banks," saving and investing is a bad thing now? I mean I know that's the agenda the administration has been pursuing, but I was raised to believe that savings are a positive thing.
I do not know if you can really call it wealth redistribution. Income is taxed and not wealth. I do not think anyone is really suggesting actual wealth redistribution, so OWS is not really as radical and communist as you want to paint them. Compare what you are decrying as wealth redistribution to what happened in Germany between 1948 and 1978: over those thirty years, everyone had to pay 50 % of their wealth into a fund that payed out for anyone damaged in the war. Every year, you had to give up 1.67 % of your wealth. In the calculations, the worth of any real estate you owned was included, so without enough income, you perhaps had to take out loans to be able to pay and it really did hurt. Laws like this were backed by the conservatives, not only the socialists, so I guess German conservatives of that time would be seen as crazy communists in the US?
Nope that makes sense you had to rebuild the country and as you said above EVERYONE paid the same percent. And such a system is exactly what many fiscal conservatives want a flat tax we all pay the same equal % what is more fair than that? no accounting games no loopholes.
What you have in america is a "progressive" tax system so as you make more you pay a higher %. If you make the Avg in america $40k after deductions< you pay 0%-5% federal tax and in many cases get money through refundable tax credits. The % you pay goes up the more you make topping out at over 30%.
The OWS argument is those making a lot of money the 1% should pay more than 30%
On November 19 2011 00:42 mechavoc wrote: So OWS is about income redistribution? That is not something I can get behind as it is down right silly. Unlike election reform which I find makes much more sense.
I'm assuming once they have taken the money from the 1% they will also be giving up their Starbucks, Prius, I-phones and hipster scarves to provide potable drinking water for those in the Sudan. After all almost 100% of the people lucky enough to win the birth lottery and be born in America are in the top 1% worldwide.
So if it is a good and proper thing to redistribute the wealth of the top 1% in America it should be good and proper to redistribute 1% worldwide.
If we do this however we will no longer have a team liquid site as luxury items such as computers and SC2 are a bit too expensive to provide for all 7 billion humans around the globe. If this happens I will miss you all, but I will congratulate you on making a better more equal world.
edit: verb usage correction
Income redistribution is already occurring, it just needs to be going the other direction. Are you really fine with the average person getting less and less money every year while the wealthy who do nothing with their a high amount money get more and more every year? This is awful for the economy and the government.
And the whole worldwide analogy is just ridiculous since most of the world's population doesn't even have means to use the wealth that they would get. Not to mention, most of those people are already happier than Americans are. Lets not spread our shitty, stressful, lifestyles to them.
So they are happier even having less money... perhaps we just need to make the 99% of people in the Western world even poorer so that they can be happy and give up their shitty, stressful lifestyles. (the 1% of those in the Western world can suffer the burden of accumulating all the unhappy wealth) .[/sarcasm]
If the 1% of the US should be giving up their money for the 99% of the US, then the 1% of the world (people over ~50,000 income ie the US and other western nations) should do it for the 99% of the world.
We are already stuck here, its not that easy to transition backward.
The whole "world" argument is just not applicable when talking about a US (or Western world) related issue. Please stop bringing it up.
And no one is saying that the top 1% of Americans should give up all of their money instantly. They should still be in the top 1% after a wealth redistribution has occurred over some number of years. They will still be wealthy and they will still have more money than they need. Most people are giving up more and more of their paychecks every year in taxes and insurance costs, so why can't extremely wealthy people be doing the same (except more)?
The whole world argument is pretty applicable, So it seems reasonable to bring it up again and again. People want to take from others to get what they want simple as that, the 1% want it the 99% want it. We all want a better standard of living.
So it is hypocritical to say well we already enjoy being in the top 1% world wide and can't go backwards as I really love my PS3 and Flatscreen TV,but those millionaires really should be sacrificed so I can get 4 years of free college and maybe a little bigger flat screen TV.
This nasty little bit of hypocricy is why I think the OWS movement would be much better served if they focused on a single obtainable goal like election reform. Atleast with that they can maintin the integrity of their message.
As the west we are the richest people in the world and everyone living like we do would be a major disaster. But to see that we are exponentially richer then the world, begs to look at how exponentially richer the few are compared to the majority within our own ranks. But thinking in terms of our world is very applicable and ultimately more important then everyone getting an ipad 2.
On November 18 2011 07:26 imperator-xy wrote: yea id just shoot all o' them
Yeah, you have some fucking problems.
Can't believe people are defending the police who enjoy macing 84 year old women, pretty sad. Then there are other people, who aren't even from the U.S, questioning why people are doing this in the first place. Holy shit, really?
If you don't know how this country works then just don't comment please, getting rather tired of reading bullshit. Maybe some don't agree with OWS and everything they are doing, I certainly don't, but there is no need to wish violence or death upon them.
Enki do you really think an 85 year old should be out in a protest like that? Talk about exploitation great photo op, maybe OWS should bring out disabled kids next in wheel chairs as a front line against the wall of police.
The police are out numbered and are not going to take chances when people are not following their requests so a little common sense should come into play here. Heck I get nervous for my 80yr old grandmother safety when there is a high curb she needs to navigate.
Still not how you fucking treat the elderly, brats. Out there or not out there, don't be idiotic. People fight for what they believe for. Now you are just on crack and insulting people. Bringing dis-abled children out? WTF.
considering the avg age of the tea party i guess they shouldn't have ever protested.
On November 18 2011 11:14 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
On November 18 2011 10:22 Expurgate wrote:
On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote: This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious.
If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you.
Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas.
There is nothing wrong with income inequality, because there has always been income inequality and there always will be. No country has ever been able to eliminate it. The only problem is the lack of income mobility. The ability for the rich to become poor and the poor to become rich. What the OWS crowd want is actually less income mobility, and since it is impossible to remove income inequality they would create a society vastly worse than what we have now.
Lol... You do realize how little social mobility we have currently esp considering our historical high. You also realize number one way of increasing social mobility is though opportunity, usually given though education and i don't ever remember any ows voicing the idea of making education less available to people.
Also if you're going to shit talk you should elaborate, else i can just claim that you're out to do nothing but smear ows.
Over the past 10 years 66% of the lower 20% left their income bracket for a higher one. Only 10% of the lower 20% fell. You think that is little social mobility? 66% leave their bracket for higher incomes? Want me to look up how many of the top 1% and 5% have fallen?
Why yes, I do. Because you're not telling the truth. Why don't you play around with this for a little bit. Data collected by full-time, professional economists, who spend their lives studying this subject, show that inequality and social mobility have gotten substantially worse since.
Ok well my source is the IRS specifically the census data. I think that beats something provided by the NYT. Also your study ignores the fact that more laws are passed the prevent social mobility (surprise, the government stops class mobility with regulation). Name for me a country that produces more wealth than the US and also follows the ideas of the OWS. There is a specific reason why one never has existed.
edit: here you are http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf • There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period. • Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005. • Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period. • The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996). • Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.
Stop saying bullshit man, you just don't know how mobility is studied in social science... Rising income or income mobility doesn't mean that there are more intergenerational mobility at all, it's two completly different things.
Also, mobility doesn't mean a lot. When you say for exemple that half of the taxpayers moved to a different income quintile, it doesn't mean anything at all if the you just moved from the 26th position to the 24th... there is a general principle of proximity (a peasant who become a manual worker is a mobility but it's not a real mobility because peasant & workers have more or less the same position in the social structure). For exemple, it's known that the middle class is more touched by mobility, because as they are in the midle of the society, they can move up and down. On the other side, rich can only move down (really?) and poor only up. When you say: look the poor moved up in their quintile, that's great, but that doesn't show how many people moved down or how many stayed in their condition. Of course there is fluidity within the social structure, but getting a pay raise from 1000$ to 1200$ doesn't mean the US is a fluid country.
Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.
By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.
On November 18 2011 23:35 Velr wrote: Your logic would be flawless...
If the guys in charge would not earn millions upon millions from the according to you "not too expensive products" and go isntantly bankrupt with a more even payout distribution... but it's even worse, they even earn millions by just having millions on their banks doing nothing themselves to earn this money...
I don't care if you up the taxes or the payouts among "low-tier" employees... The inequality is just bad for the state, bad for business and bad for the marked... The only people profiting from the inequality are the (too) wealthy.
So wealth redistribution, basically. Take from the haves, give to the have-nots, using the force of government. I'm sure we've been around this over and over again through this thread, but its also one of the only concrete, actionable demands I've seen anyone bring up for OWS.
I'm also a bit puzzled about your complaint about them having "millions on their banks," saving and investing is a bad thing now? I mean I know that's the agenda the administration has been pursuing, but I was raised to believe that savings are a positive thing.
I do not know if you can really call it wealth redistribution. Income is taxed and not wealth. I do not think anyone is really suggesting actual wealth redistribution, so OWS is not really as radical and communist as you want to paint them. Compare what you are decrying as wealth redistribution to what happened in Germany between 1948 and 1978: over those thirty years, everyone had to pay 50 % of their wealth into a fund that payed out for anyone damaged in the war. Every year, you had to give up 1.67 % of your wealth. In the calculations, the worth of any real estate you owned was included, so without enough income, you perhaps had to take out loans to be able to pay and it really did hurt. Laws like this were backed by the conservatives, not only the socialists, so I guess German conservatives of that time would be seen as crazy communists in the US?
On November 19 2011 00:42 mechavoc wrote: So OWS is about income redistribution? That is not something I can get behind as it is down right silly. Unlike election reform which I find makes much more sense.
I'm assuming once they have taken the money from the 1% they will also be giving up their Starbucks, Prius, I-phones and hipster scarves to provide potable drinking water for those in the Sudan. After all almost 100% of the people lucky enough to win the birth lottery and be born in America are in the top 1% worldwide.
So if it is a good and proper thing to redistribute the wealth of the top 1% in America it should be good and proper to redistribute 1% worldwide.
If we do this however we will no longer have a team liquid site as luxury items such as computers and SC2 are a bit too expensive to provide for all 7 billion humans around the globe. If this happens I will miss you all, but I will congratulate you on making a better more equal world.
edit: verb usage correction
Income redistribution is already occurring, it just needs to be going the other direction. Are you really fine with the average person getting less and less money every year while the wealthy who do nothing with their a high amount money get more and more every year? This is awful for the economy and the government.
And the whole worldwide analogy is just ridiculous since most of the world's population doesn't even have means to use the wealth that they would get. Not to mention, most of those people are already happier than Americans are. Lets not spread our shitty, stressful, lifestyles to them.
So they are happier even having less money... perhaps we just need to make the 99% of people in the Western world even poorer so that they can be happy and give up their shitty, stressful lifestyles. (the 1% of those in the Western world can suffer the burden of accumulating all the unhappy wealth) .[/sarcasm]
If the 1% of the US should be giving up their money for the 99% of the US, then the 1% of the world (people over ~50,000 income ie the US and other western nations) should do it for the 99% of the world.
We are already stuck here, its not that easy to transition backward.
The whole "world" argument is just not applicable when talking about a US (or Western world) related issue. Please stop bringing it up.
And no one is saying that the top 1% of Americans should give up all of their money instantly. They should still be in the top 1% after a wealth redistribution has occurred over some number of years. They will still be wealthy and they will still have more money than they need. Most people are giving up more and more of their paychecks every year in taxes and insurance costs, so why can't extremely wealthy people be doing the same (except more)?
The whole world argument is pretty applicable, So it seems reasonable to bring it up again and again. People want to take from others to get what they want simple as that, the 1% want it the 99% want it. We all want a better standard of living.
So it is hypocritical to say well we already enjoy being in the top 1% world wide and can't go backwards as I really love my PS3 and Flatscreen TV,but those millionaires really should be sacrificed so I can get 4 years of free college and maybe a little bigger flat screen TV.
This nasty little bit of hypocricy is why I think the OWS movement would be much better served if they focused on a single obtainable goal like election reform. Atleast with that they can maintin the integrity of their message.
As the west we are the richest people in the world and everyone living like we do would be a major disaster. But to see that we are exponentially richer then the world, begs to look at how exponentially richer the few are compared to the majority within our own ranks. But thinking in terms of our world is very applicable and ultimately more important then everyone getting an ipad 2.
So you are in agreement that we all must live more simply so that others may simply live? (I love catchy phrases like that)
It would be hard though because I like all the nice things I have and I enjoy having first world problems, but if everyone else gives up their toys (and I mean everyone) I will as well. Though I am pretty confident there are enough selfish people in the West so I will not need to make any sacrifices of personal comfort.
Its a shame that this is still going on. A "99%"protest for wealth redistribution in a country in which most of the population say they would vote for republicans its just silly and shows lack of basic knowledge about ether democracy or capitalism... most likely both
On November 19 2011 02:18 Aterons_toss wrote: Its a shame that this is still going on. A "99%"protest for wealth redistribution in a country in which most of the population say they would vote for republicans its just silly and shows lack of basic knowledge about ether democracy or capitalism... most likely both
actually most people would vote slightly center left based solely on the issues, but those who do vote tend to vote to the center right. That much hasn't changed in 60 years. Which is odd when you think about who wins elections and what issues win, people who win tend to be voted in based on people for them less then people against the other guy, yet when it comes to issues and ballots people tend to vote against something rather then for something.
It's interesting that the CNN interviewer was so surprised that he didn't get into trouble: (paraphrased)
Interviewer: you're with us today...are you in any trouble? Makana: I hope not... why? I Was just singing. if I'm in trouble for singing, we have major troubles.
EPT![[image loading]](http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/bXZDEf4h7yhDmWK3wmXAMA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMTY7cT04NTt3PTQ1MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2011-11-18T160047Z_4_BTRE7AH0YFN00_RTROPTP_2_WALLST-DISCONNECT.JPG)
