|
On October 06 2011 05:32 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:27 Signet wrote:On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)? Sounds like this person's education was fully funded by the government from K-12 and partially (public university) in college. If we continue cutting taxes (or even keep them at current low levels) those services will almost surely have to be reduced. Especially if the defense budget is also off the table, which many congressmen arguing that it needs to keep increasing at it's current rate. States are already laying off teachers and reducing funds for public universities. That's not *evil* but it's pretty selfish to be given opportunities by a public system and then try to dismantle that system for following generations. How many false assumptions can you make in a single post? Have I ever advocated we should dismantle the public education system? That's absurd. Reduce the budget. Reduce defense spending. Reduce entitlement spending. Improve education, don't throw money at it. Get rid of tax loopholes. Get the bottom half of America paying income taxes again. Legalize it :p Those are all things I believe in, but NOTHING is possible if Americans do not regain their sense of personal responsibility. The fact of the matter is that you CAN do something with your life regardless of where it started. You don't need things handed to you.
I apologize for the assumptions. When I read Rick Roy's post of a block quote with no name attributed, I assumed that he had pulled something from an anonymous external source. (yeah, I did assume it was some ultra-libertarian privatize everything type) I didn't realize it was from a TL user who I could just ask/figure out what exactly they want/believe, and apparently didn't read the thread well enough to see someone else had originally written it.
It sounds like you believe in a pretty decent idea so I'll just leave it at that.
Federal income taxes aren't the only tax in America. If those became flat(-ter) without changes in the other taxes, we'd have a regressive system overall.
tbh I'd be fine with a flat federal income tax IF states went to the same thing and eliminated their regressive taxes (sales, property) and if we removed the cap on payroll taxes. Same result, less hassle.
|
I don't believe that the middle class and poor people in America want to have everything handed to them. The "99%" just want to feel like the deck isn't stacked against them. If you don't think the deck isn't stacked then you are wrong. We have been pushing middle class jobs out of this country for the last couple of decades. Jobs that the middle class thrives on. While corporations and administrations have done that, they still have the expectation that the middle class will carry the load of paying for everything.
Then you have the rising costs of food, healthcare, education, and energy but the salaries aren't really going up fast enough to deal with it.
People don't want things handed to them...they just want things to be fair and not feel screwed.
|
Well, just look at this. This just brings solid evidence to the idea some of us held for some time now.
The steady growth of the living standard of the average westerner was dictated by the existence of the Soviet Union. Corporate overlords were afraid that commie's idea would spread to their own country and as a result they'll be overthrown, so they were caring about well being of the lower social classes. But once USSR approached it's collapse they figured that Socialist threat is no more and so they can finally concentrate on what Capitalism is all about - getting richer of other's expense.
|
On October 06 2011 05:42 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:39 Logo wrote:On October 06 2011 05:25 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:22 Logo wrote:I don't understand why people are focusing so much on taxes which are part of the issue, but not all of it, nor even really the most important part imo. The bigger issue, as I see it, is more of this: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/299762_2442823032078_1296915961_2902112_1143001595_n.jpghttp://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/There's nothing wrong with the rich being rich, or corporations being big (though too big may be an issue, but a different one). The problem is that corporations, or more specifically the people in corporations, seem to be increasingly encouraged to horde the benefits of prosperity to the exclusion of others. I don't see how it could be even remotely bad to find ways to encourage corporations (or the system as a whole) to spread growth more evenly across the population. It's not redistributing wealth or preventing the wealthy from being wealthy or getting rich. It's about making sure that one part of the pie doesn't take all the growth and choke out the other parts. The pie can only grow so much so fast, when the top 1% takes all/most of that growth the other 99% suffer and eventually creates an unstable system that can't sustain itself. and how much more did the top lose in the next few years when the markets crashed? First off that's not even relevant because it's about income, not cash holdings (which yes the market crash factors into that, but not in that way). If the bottom 99% lost nothing at all when the markets crashed (not true of course) then the top 1% would have had to have their family income drop 63% from the crash to have their income growth match the growth that the bottom 99% does. So meaning that from 2007-2011 if the top 1% lost 63% of their income and the bottom 99% had 0 growth then the overall growth from 1980-2011 would have been ~30% across the board. Do you really think the market crashed SO MUCH that the top 1% is now making 63% less in 2011 than they did in 2007? It's relevant because you can make percentage change graphs do funny things depending on your start and stop dates. In any case, I guess I'm a little confused because I don't understand the platform or position of Occupy Wall Street and "the 99%". Is it that the rich have too much money? Or that there is a finite amount of money in the world and the rich have gobbled it all up? I think we can all agree the latter is ridiculous. If it's the former, is it jealously that drives them? I don't make as much money as several of my neighbors, but I don't mind. I work hard and live within my means. I've done the poor college student eating ramen. I've done the 550 square foot apartment.
If you don't understand what are you doing in here trying to discredit what they are out trying to fix? Those are all covered by OWS protestors: Reduce the budget. Reduce defense spending (Healthcare not Warfare) Reduce entitlement spending. Improve education, Get rid of tax loopholes. Legalize it (obviously)
Stop talking about shit you don't pay attention to or hear on the news. I went to OWS last night and it has its fair share of uninformed hippies (who else can camp out during a weekday) however every night after work there are Harvard alumni ... professors, lawyers, other graduates.. it isn't all a bunch of hippies. Dr. Richard Wolff gave a pretty moving lecture about some of these problems and his opinions on the current economic state and the longer these protests go on the more steam and knowledge it will pick up. People like you just try to downplay this with what they read on the internet or just assume oh its 99% of lazy Americans trying to get free hand outs. You are no 1% you just made some good choices because you had the privilege of being raised by a good family. Stop trying to put down others who weren't as lucky.
|
On October 06 2011 05:22 Logo wrote:I don't understand why people are focusing so much on taxes which are part of the issue, but not all of it, nor even really the most important part imo. The bigger issue, as I see it, is more of this: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/299762_2442823032078_1296915961_2902112_1143001595_n.jpghttp://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/There's nothing wrong with the rich being rich, or corporations being big (though too big may be an issue, but a different one). The problem is that corporations, or more specifically the people in corporations, seem to be increasingly encouraged to horde the benefits of prosperity to higher up employees at the exclusion of everyone else. I don't see why something like a progressive payroll tax couldn't work wonderfully in helping to a) encourage companies to hire more lower wage workers
I think this is called outsourcing
|
|
|
On October 06 2011 06:23 InRaged wrote:Well, just look at this. This just brings solid evidence to the idea some of us held for some time now. The steady growth of the living standard of the average westerner was dictated by the existence of the Soviet Union. Corporate overlords were afraid that commie's idea would spread to their own country and as a result they'll be overthrown, so they were caring about well being of the lower social classes. But once USSR approached it's collapse they figured that Socialist threat is no more and so they can finally concentrate on what Capitalism is all about - getting richer for other's expense.
At least in Europe, the fear of communism (apart from social democrats in our own countries) was one of the driving forces behind the expansion of the social safety net. Another thing to consider is, that with the fall of the Soviet Union and it's satellites and the opening of Asian countries a massive influx of labor forces happened that led to the globalization which made Western production less profitable. This together with the fact that through automatization less people were needed in the remaining industry, led to unemployment. To counter this more people worked in government jobs, administration, that's why our modern administrations today are that overblown. Also jobs were created through relativly senseless infrastructure "impovements". (Like in East Germany, "Arbeitsbeschaffung", putting people into senseless jobs so they don't count for the unemploymentrate). This partly led to the massive government debts in all western countries. Also in this time the tax-rates of the rich were lowered and the economy got deregulated.
That's just my opinion.
|
On October 06 2011 06:37 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 06:23 InRaged wrote:Well, just look at this. This just brings solid evidence to the idea some of us held for some time now. The steady growth of the living standard of the average westerner was dictated by the existence of the Soviet Union. Corporate overlords were afraid that commie's idea would spread to their own country and as a result they'll be overthrown, so they were caring about well being of the lower social classes. But once USSR approached it's collapse they figured that Socialist threat is no more and so they can finally concentrate on what Capitalism is all about - getting richer for other's expense. At least in Europe, the fear of communism (apart from social democrats in our own countries) was one of the driving forces behind the expansion of the social safety net. Another thing to consider is, that with the fall of the Soviet Union and it's satellites and the opening of Asian countries a massive influx of labor forces happened that led to the globalization which made Western production less profitable. This together with the fact that through automatization less people were needed in the remaining industry, led to unemployment. To counter this more people worked in government jobs, administration, that's why our modern administrations today are that overblown. Also jobs were created through relativly senseless infrastructure "impovements". (Like in East Germany, "Arbeitsbeschaffung", putting people into senseless jobs so they don't count for the unemploymentrate). This partly led to the massive government debts in all western countries. Also in this time the tax-rates of the rich were lowered and the economy got deregulated. That's just my opinion.
Bingo.
|
On October 06 2011 06:05 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 08:39 Xxio wrote:
This will achieve nothing besides making the people involved look like idiots. I'm also 90% certain that the majority of people involved are in the top 1% themselves, and don't even know what kind of income the top 1% entails. All of this, of course, besides the fact that the idea and preconceptions behind it are completely misconstrued. The organizers and protestors themselves have made it clear on the whole the protest is about concentrated wealth and corporate corruption. And, top earners like lawyers are out protesting with the group because they believe in the cause. I agree most of the protestors don't understand the derivitves market or behind-closed-doors legislative obstacles, but they, like most Americans, understand the economy is not doing well and Wall-Street is. Top 1% refers to those individuals earning more than $250,000 annualy. Also, regarding student protests: most protests begin with college students for two reasons: they have the time to and in an economic protest such as this, they are the ones with a future promised them that won't pay up. As politicans talk about recent reduced unemployment for the aggregate, post-grad underemployment is still about 20% in the US alone.
This is my point! The future is promised to no one! If you want it, go out and earn it!
|
Good quality interview video + links
Text of interview with an organizer
Source:WashPo
For people like me that were perplexed by rarely-stated vague goals (indeed, one of the purposes I gather) and needed to see more than what was previously linked.
Interesting tidbits from interview:
+ Show Spoiler +EK: This movement is organized rather differently than most protest movements. There isn’t really a list of demands, or goals, or even much of an identifiable leadership. But if I understand you correctly, that’s sort of the point.
DG: It’s very similar to the globalization movement. You see the same criticisms in the press. It’s a bunch of kids who don’t know economics and only know what they’re against. But there’s a reason for that. it’s pre-figurative, so to speak. You’re creating a vision of the sort of society you want to have in miniature. And it’s a way of juxtaposing yourself against these powerful, undemocratic forces you’re protesting. If you make demands, you’re saying, in a way, that you’re asking the people in power and the existing institutions to do something different. And one reason people have been hesitant to do that is they see these institutions as the problem.
EK: So if you say, for instance, that you want a tax on Wall Street and then you’ll be happy, you’re implicitly saying that you’re willing to be happy with a slightly modified version of the current system.
DG: Right. The tax on Wall Street will go to people controlled by Wall Street.
Interesting that this guy really sees an open-forum style democracy as a society he would like to see, akin to the miniature ones they're having on Wall St. The proposed solution to the view that gov't gets controlled by corporations? Break it down to a participatory forum? Hmm.
Lastly,
+ Show Spoiler [Photos making the rounds] +
AP News reporting on how unions now protesting with the Occupy crowd.
|
On October 06 2011 06:06 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:32 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:27 Signet wrote:On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)? Sounds like this person's education was fully funded by the government from K-12 and partially (public university) in college. If we continue cutting taxes (or even keep them at current low levels) those services will almost surely have to be reduced. Especially if the defense budget is also off the table, which many congressmen arguing that it needs to keep increasing at it's current rate. States are already laying off teachers and reducing funds for public universities. That's not *evil* but it's pretty selfish to be given opportunities by a public system and then try to dismantle that system for following generations. How many false assumptions can you make in a single post? Have I ever advocated we should dismantle the public education system? That's absurd. Reduce the budget. Reduce defense spending. Reduce entitlement spending. Improve education, don't throw money at it. Get rid of tax loopholes. Get the bottom half of America paying income taxes again. Legalize it :p Those are all things I believe in, but NOTHING is possible if Americans do not regain their sense of personal responsibility. The fact of the matter is that you CAN do something with your life regardless of where it started. You don't need things handed to you. I apologize for the assumptions. When I read Rick Roy's post of a block quote with no name attributed, I assumed that he had pulled something from an anonymous external source. (yeah, I did assume it was some ultra-libertarian privatize everything type) I didn't realize it was from a TL user who I could just ask/figure out what exactly they want/believe, and apparently didn't read the thread well enough to see someone else had originally written it. It sounds like you believe in a pretty decent idea so I'll just leave it at that. Federal income taxes aren't the only tax in America. If those became flat(-ter) without changes in the other taxes, we'd have a regressive system overall. tbh I'd be fine with a flat federal income tax IF states went to the same thing and eliminated their regressive taxes (sales, property) and if we removed the cap on payroll taxes. Same result, less hassle.
I'm of the opinion that eliminating most tax loopholes would heavily swing the tax burden even further towards the "rich" and corporations, so the bottom of half of America would really need to compensate somehow.
There are a lot of things wrong with our government, our economy, and our society. I'm no Republican/Bush apologist. If you had to put a label on me you could probably call me a Libertarian but I think even that is too constricting.
I believe that the following two principles guide the majority of people's lives:
1. Look out for yourself
2. Do right by others (but not necessarily at the expense of #1)
Of course there are exceptions to the rule but I think this holds in general. The problem is that some people believe they can look out for themselves by voting themselves the public's money, instead of behaving responsibly and working hard.
We have entire sections of the American society who do not value education, and I am NOT talking about the legislators who are cutting budgets. That is a fundamental flaw and I believe unless it is corrected our country will collapse under it's own entitled weight.
|
On October 06 2011 07:15 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 06:06 Signet wrote:On October 06 2011 05:32 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:27 Signet wrote:On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)? Sounds like this person's education was fully funded by the government from K-12 and partially (public university) in college. If we continue cutting taxes (or even keep them at current low levels) those services will almost surely have to be reduced. Especially if the defense budget is also off the table, which many congressmen arguing that it needs to keep increasing at it's current rate. States are already laying off teachers and reducing funds for public universities. That's not *evil* but it's pretty selfish to be given opportunities by a public system and then try to dismantle that system for following generations. How many false assumptions can you make in a single post? Have I ever advocated we should dismantle the public education system? That's absurd. Reduce the budget. Reduce defense spending. Reduce entitlement spending. Improve education, don't throw money at it. Get rid of tax loopholes. Get the bottom half of America paying income taxes again. Legalize it :p Those are all things I believe in, but NOTHING is possible if Americans do not regain their sense of personal responsibility. The fact of the matter is that you CAN do something with your life regardless of where it started. You don't need things handed to you. I apologize for the assumptions. When I read Rick Roy's post of a block quote with no name attributed, I assumed that he had pulled something from an anonymous external source. (yeah, I did assume it was some ultra-libertarian privatize everything type) I didn't realize it was from a TL user who I could just ask/figure out what exactly they want/believe, and apparently didn't read the thread well enough to see someone else had originally written it. It sounds like you believe in a pretty decent idea so I'll just leave it at that. Federal income taxes aren't the only tax in America. If those became flat(-ter) without changes in the other taxes, we'd have a regressive system overall. tbh I'd be fine with a flat federal income tax IF states went to the same thing and eliminated their regressive taxes (sales, property) and if we removed the cap on payroll taxes. Same result, less hassle. I'm of the opinion that eliminating most tax loopholes would heavily swing the tax burden even further towards the "rich" and corporations, so the bottom of half of America would really need to compensate somehow. There are a lot of things wrong with our government, our economy, and our society. I'm no Republican/Bush apologist. If you had to put a label on me you could probably call me a Libertarian but I think even that is too constricting. I believe that the following two principles guide the majority of people's lives: 1. Look out for yourself 2. Do right by others (but not necessarily at the expense of #1) Of course there are exceptions to the rule but I think this holds in general. The problem is that some people believe they can look out for themselves by voting themselves the public's money, instead of behaving responsibly and working hard. We have entire sections of the American society who do not value education, and I am NOT talking about the legislators who are cutting budgets. That is a fundamental flaw and I believe unless it is corrected our country will collapse under it's own entitled weight.
The rich never payed less in taxes!! what are you talking about the heavy tax burden of the rich?
|
On October 06 2011 07:18 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 07:15 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 06:06 Signet wrote:On October 06 2011 05:32 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:27 Signet wrote:On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)? Sounds like this person's education was fully funded by the government from K-12 and partially (public university) in college. If we continue cutting taxes (or even keep them at current low levels) those services will almost surely have to be reduced. Especially if the defense budget is also off the table, which many congressmen arguing that it needs to keep increasing at it's current rate. States are already laying off teachers and reducing funds for public universities. That's not *evil* but it's pretty selfish to be given opportunities by a public system and then try to dismantle that system for following generations. How many false assumptions can you make in a single post? Have I ever advocated we should dismantle the public education system? That's absurd. Reduce the budget. Reduce defense spending. Reduce entitlement spending. Improve education, don't throw money at it. Get rid of tax loopholes. Get the bottom half of America paying income taxes again. Legalize it :p Those are all things I believe in, but NOTHING is possible if Americans do not regain their sense of personal responsibility. The fact of the matter is that you CAN do something with your life regardless of where it started. You don't need things handed to you. I apologize for the assumptions. When I read Rick Roy's post of a block quote with no name attributed, I assumed that he had pulled something from an anonymous external source. (yeah, I did assume it was some ultra-libertarian privatize everything type) I didn't realize it was from a TL user who I could just ask/figure out what exactly they want/believe, and apparently didn't read the thread well enough to see someone else had originally written it. It sounds like you believe in a pretty decent idea so I'll just leave it at that. Federal income taxes aren't the only tax in America. If those became flat(-ter) without changes in the other taxes, we'd have a regressive system overall. tbh I'd be fine with a flat federal income tax IF states went to the same thing and eliminated their regressive taxes (sales, property) and if we removed the cap on payroll taxes. Same result, less hassle. I'm of the opinion that eliminating most tax loopholes would heavily swing the tax burden even further towards the "rich" and corporations, so the bottom of half of America would really need to compensate somehow. There are a lot of things wrong with our government, our economy, and our society. I'm no Republican/Bush apologist. If you had to put a label on me you could probably call me a Libertarian but I think even that is too constricting. I believe that the following two principles guide the majority of people's lives: 1. Look out for yourself 2. Do right by others (but not necessarily at the expense of #1) Of course there are exceptions to the rule but I think this holds in general. The problem is that some people believe they can look out for themselves by voting themselves the public's money, instead of behaving responsibly and working hard. We have entire sections of the American society who do not value education, and I am NOT talking about the legislators who are cutting budgets. That is a fundamental flaw and I believe unless it is corrected our country will collapse under it's own entitled weight. The rich never payed less in taxes!! what are you talking about the heavy tax burden of the rich?
The rich as a group pay far more than the poor as a group. A poor person might pay more individually, on a percentage basis, I admit.
My point there was that the rich make far, far more use out of tax loopholes than the poor. So if you removed those overnight, the rich would pay a much higher share at the same time, without changing the tax "rate".
|
On October 06 2011 07:21 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 07:18 BlackFlag wrote:On October 06 2011 07:15 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 06:06 Signet wrote:On October 06 2011 05:32 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:27 Signet wrote:On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)? Sounds like this person's education was fully funded by the government from K-12 and partially (public university) in college. If we continue cutting taxes (or even keep them at current low levels) those services will almost surely have to be reduced. Especially if the defense budget is also off the table, which many congressmen arguing that it needs to keep increasing at it's current rate. States are already laying off teachers and reducing funds for public universities. That's not *evil* but it's pretty selfish to be given opportunities by a public system and then try to dismantle that system for following generations. How many false assumptions can you make in a single post? Have I ever advocated we should dismantle the public education system? That's absurd. Reduce the budget. Reduce defense spending. Reduce entitlement spending. Improve education, don't throw money at it. Get rid of tax loopholes. Get the bottom half of America paying income taxes again. Legalize it :p Those are all things I believe in, but NOTHING is possible if Americans do not regain their sense of personal responsibility. The fact of the matter is that you CAN do something with your life regardless of where it started. You don't need things handed to you. I apologize for the assumptions. When I read Rick Roy's post of a block quote with no name attributed, I assumed that he had pulled something from an anonymous external source. (yeah, I did assume it was some ultra-libertarian privatize everything type) I didn't realize it was from a TL user who I could just ask/figure out what exactly they want/believe, and apparently didn't read the thread well enough to see someone else had originally written it. It sounds like you believe in a pretty decent idea so I'll just leave it at that. Federal income taxes aren't the only tax in America. If those became flat(-ter) without changes in the other taxes, we'd have a regressive system overall. tbh I'd be fine with a flat federal income tax IF states went to the same thing and eliminated their regressive taxes (sales, property) and if we removed the cap on payroll taxes. Same result, less hassle. I'm of the opinion that eliminating most tax loopholes would heavily swing the tax burden even further towards the "rich" and corporations, so the bottom of half of America would really need to compensate somehow. There are a lot of things wrong with our government, our economy, and our society. I'm no Republican/Bush apologist. If you had to put a label on me you could probably call me a Libertarian but I think even that is too constricting. I believe that the following two principles guide the majority of people's lives: 1. Look out for yourself 2. Do right by others (but not necessarily at the expense of #1) Of course there are exceptions to the rule but I think this holds in general. The problem is that some people believe they can look out for themselves by voting themselves the public's money, instead of behaving responsibly and working hard. We have entire sections of the American society who do not value education, and I am NOT talking about the legislators who are cutting budgets. That is a fundamental flaw and I believe unless it is corrected our country will collapse under it's own entitled weight. The rich never payed less in taxes!! what are you talking about the heavy tax burden of the rich? The rich as a group pay far more than the poor as a group. A poor person might pay more individually, on a percentage basis, I admit. My point there was that the rich make far, far more use out of tax loopholes than the poor. So if you removed those overnight, the rich would pay a much higher share at the same time, without changing the tax "rate".
You didn't understand me I think. Look at tax rates for the rich under Nixon for example. In the last 100 years the American rich never payed lower tax rates than now, I find it presumptuous to talk like they're crawling under the heavy taxes they have to pay while in reality they never paid less than now. The poor also own nothing. If you tax the poor more they are having real problems. The rich wouldn't even see a tiny change in their lifestyle if they'd pay 10% more taxes.
|
On October 06 2011 06:17 TheAldo wrote:
I don't believe that the middle class and poor people in America want to have everything handed to them. The "99%" just want to feel like the deck isn't stacked against them. If you don't think the deck isn't stacked then you are wrong. We have been pushing middle class jobs out of this country for the last couple of decades. Jobs that the middle class thrives on. While corporations and administrations have done that, they still have the expectation that the middle class will carry the load of paying for everything.
Then you have the rising costs of food, healthcare, education, and energy but the salaries aren't really going up fast enough to deal with it.
People don't want things handed to them...they just want things to be fair and not feel screwed.
if 99% of the people all have it the same, is the system fair or unfair?
is there a system where 100% of people are winners?
|
On October 06 2011 07:28 redwingxviii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 06:17 TheAldo wrote:
I don't believe that the middle class and poor people in America want to have everything handed to them. The "99%" just want to feel like the deck isn't stacked against them. If you don't think the deck isn't stacked then you are wrong. We have been pushing middle class jobs out of this country for the last couple of decades. Jobs that the middle class thrives on. While corporations and administrations have done that, they still have the expectation that the middle class will carry the load of paying for everything.
Then you have the rising costs of food, healthcare, education, and energy but the salaries aren't really going up fast enough to deal with it.
People don't want things handed to them...they just want things to be fair and not feel screwed. if 99% of the people all have it the same, is the system fair or unfair? is there a system where 100% of people are winners?
I'd prefer 99% to be well off and 1% to be protesting, rather than the opposite.
|
On October 06 2011 07:25 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 07:21 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 07:18 BlackFlag wrote:On October 06 2011 07:15 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 06:06 Signet wrote:On October 06 2011 05:32 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:27 Signet wrote:On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)? Sounds like this person's education was fully funded by the government from K-12 and partially (public university) in college. If we continue cutting taxes (or even keep them at current low levels) those services will almost surely have to be reduced. Especially if the defense budget is also off the table, which many congressmen arguing that it needs to keep increasing at it's current rate. States are already laying off teachers and reducing funds for public universities. That's not *evil* but it's pretty selfish to be given opportunities by a public system and then try to dismantle that system for following generations. How many false assumptions can you make in a single post? Have I ever advocated we should dismantle the public education system? That's absurd. Reduce the budget. Reduce defense spending. Reduce entitlement spending. Improve education, don't throw money at it. Get rid of tax loopholes. Get the bottom half of America paying income taxes again. Legalize it :p Those are all things I believe in, but NOTHING is possible if Americans do not regain their sense of personal responsibility. The fact of the matter is that you CAN do something with your life regardless of where it started. You don't need things handed to you. I apologize for the assumptions. When I read Rick Roy's post of a block quote with no name attributed, I assumed that he had pulled something from an anonymous external source. (yeah, I did assume it was some ultra-libertarian privatize everything type) I didn't realize it was from a TL user who I could just ask/figure out what exactly they want/believe, and apparently didn't read the thread well enough to see someone else had originally written it. It sounds like you believe in a pretty decent idea so I'll just leave it at that. Federal income taxes aren't the only tax in America. If those became flat(-ter) without changes in the other taxes, we'd have a regressive system overall. tbh I'd be fine with a flat federal income tax IF states went to the same thing and eliminated their regressive taxes (sales, property) and if we removed the cap on payroll taxes. Same result, less hassle. I'm of the opinion that eliminating most tax loopholes would heavily swing the tax burden even further towards the "rich" and corporations, so the bottom of half of America would really need to compensate somehow. There are a lot of things wrong with our government, our economy, and our society. I'm no Republican/Bush apologist. If you had to put a label on me you could probably call me a Libertarian but I think even that is too constricting. I believe that the following two principles guide the majority of people's lives: 1. Look out for yourself 2. Do right by others (but not necessarily at the expense of #1) Of course there are exceptions to the rule but I think this holds in general. The problem is that some people believe they can look out for themselves by voting themselves the public's money, instead of behaving responsibly and working hard. We have entire sections of the American society who do not value education, and I am NOT talking about the legislators who are cutting budgets. That is a fundamental flaw and I believe unless it is corrected our country will collapse under it's own entitled weight. The rich never payed less in taxes!! what are you talking about the heavy tax burden of the rich? The rich as a group pay far more than the poor as a group. A poor person might pay more individually, on a percentage basis, I admit. My point there was that the rich make far, far more use out of tax loopholes than the poor. So if you removed those overnight, the rich would pay a much higher share at the same time, without changing the tax "rate". You didn't understand me I think. Look at tax rates for the rich under Nixon for example. In the last 100 years the American rich never payed lower tax rates than now, I find it presumptuous to talk like they're crawling under the heavy taxes they have to pay while in reality they never paid less than now. The poor also own nothing. If you tax the poor more they are having real problems. The rich wouldn't even see a tiny change in their lifestyle if they'd pay 10% more taxes.
I'm looking at these statistics: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.html
You can see that the group of people making less than $50,000 a year pay less than 10% of the total income taxes collected, despite making up over 50% of the number of tax returns.
I'm not saying the "rich" are financially hurting because of their taxes (otherwise they wouldn't be rich any more), I'm just saying that they contribute the vast majority of income tax to the IRS.
|
I really think at the end of the day these tax issues are irrelevant. People aren't going to suddenly change their world view and value education because Warren Buffet starts paying more in taxes, ESPECIALLY if it doesn't result in a balanced budget or paying off the debt anyways (hint: it won't). Both sides of the political spectrum will have to come together to reduce spending.
I really am trying to understand the point of view of the Occupy Wall Street types. I know they feel the deck is "stacked against them" but I really can't agree. Sure, you might not be able to invest $200,000 into a startup company and hit it big, but the economy simply doesn't work in a way where that is possible for everyone. You can, however, study hard, go to a good university, work hard, get a good job, support your family, and live comfortably. You might get laid off and times might be hard, but I don't see a realistic alternative where no one loses their job, ever.
If college is too expensive, go to a cheaper school! Go to community college for the first two years to get your basics out of the way! Come to Texas where we have programs where high school kids can get college credit, it saves a ton of money and time! Just because your friend's parents have more money and can afford to send him to some expensive private school doesn't mean you can do the same - and there's nothing wrong with that! If job security and financial security are very important to you, think about what kind of career options your degree offers. Don't choose an easy or "fun" degree with little job prospects and then complain after the fact!
|
On October 06 2011 07:38 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 07:25 BlackFlag wrote:On October 06 2011 07:21 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 07:18 BlackFlag wrote:On October 06 2011 07:15 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 06:06 Signet wrote:On October 06 2011 05:32 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:27 Signet wrote:On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)? Sounds like this person's education was fully funded by the government from K-12 and partially (public university) in college. If we continue cutting taxes (or even keep them at current low levels) those services will almost surely have to be reduced. Especially if the defense budget is also off the table, which many congressmen arguing that it needs to keep increasing at it's current rate. States are already laying off teachers and reducing funds for public universities. That's not *evil* but it's pretty selfish to be given opportunities by a public system and then try to dismantle that system for following generations. How many false assumptions can you make in a single post? Have I ever advocated we should dismantle the public education system? That's absurd. Reduce the budget. Reduce defense spending. Reduce entitlement spending. Improve education, don't throw money at it. Get rid of tax loopholes. Get the bottom half of America paying income taxes again. Legalize it :p Those are all things I believe in, but NOTHING is possible if Americans do not regain their sense of personal responsibility. The fact of the matter is that you CAN do something with your life regardless of where it started. You don't need things handed to you. I apologize for the assumptions. When I read Rick Roy's post of a block quote with no name attributed, I assumed that he had pulled something from an anonymous external source. (yeah, I did assume it was some ultra-libertarian privatize everything type) I didn't realize it was from a TL user who I could just ask/figure out what exactly they want/believe, and apparently didn't read the thread well enough to see someone else had originally written it. It sounds like you believe in a pretty decent idea so I'll just leave it at that. Federal income taxes aren't the only tax in America. If those became flat(-ter) without changes in the other taxes, we'd have a regressive system overall. tbh I'd be fine with a flat federal income tax IF states went to the same thing and eliminated their regressive taxes (sales, property) and if we removed the cap on payroll taxes. Same result, less hassle. I'm of the opinion that eliminating most tax loopholes would heavily swing the tax burden even further towards the "rich" and corporations, so the bottom of half of America would really need to compensate somehow. There are a lot of things wrong with our government, our economy, and our society. I'm no Republican/Bush apologist. If you had to put a label on me you could probably call me a Libertarian but I think even that is too constricting. I believe that the following two principles guide the majority of people's lives: 1. Look out for yourself 2. Do right by others (but not necessarily at the expense of #1) Of course there are exceptions to the rule but I think this holds in general. The problem is that some people believe they can look out for themselves by voting themselves the public's money, instead of behaving responsibly and working hard. We have entire sections of the American society who do not value education, and I am NOT talking about the legislators who are cutting budgets. That is a fundamental flaw and I believe unless it is corrected our country will collapse under it's own entitled weight. The rich never payed less in taxes!! what are you talking about the heavy tax burden of the rich? The rich as a group pay far more than the poor as a group. A poor person might pay more individually, on a percentage basis, I admit. My point there was that the rich make far, far more use out of tax loopholes than the poor. So if you removed those overnight, the rich would pay a much higher share at the same time, without changing the tax "rate". You didn't understand me I think. Look at tax rates for the rich under Nixon for example. In the last 100 years the American rich never payed lower tax rates than now, I find it presumptuous to talk like they're crawling under the heavy taxes they have to pay while in reality they never paid less than now. The poor also own nothing. If you tax the poor more they are having real problems. The rich wouldn't even see a tiny change in their lifestyle if they'd pay 10% more taxes. I'm looking at these statistics: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.htmlYou can see that the group of people making less than $50,000 a year pay less than 10% of the total income taxes collected, despite making up over 50% of the number of tax returns. I'm not saying the "rich" are financially hurting because of their taxes (otherwise they wouldn't be rich any more), I'm just saying that they contribute the vast majority of income tax to the IRS.
From that link I see that people earning between 50,000 $ and 500,000 $ per year gets massively screwed if you are evaluating only based on income-bracket and total tax payed. People above 500,000 $ are fewer sure but if you evaluate based on income-brackets they are not contributing that much more than the rest of the braqkets, especially considering the last bracket is open (10,000,000 $ per year and above can get pretty high!).
Instead of looking at the total tax you gain from each bracket, it is more important for each person what is left after taxes. If you increase taxation on the lowest income-groups you get a small extra economic boost for the state, but for each person in that bracket it can cause them to go broke very fast and therefore become a problem for society. There is not enough upside in taxing the lowest earning people harder than the richest in percent. Your best bet for a "fair" tax in the bracket and total tax, might be to raise non-work-related taxes. But again you are pushing the lowest income people towards the edge of massive poverty.
Therefore it is nonsence to look at total taxes paid pr. bracket like that. You are helping the state by not making people in the lower brackets carry more than they can handle.
Call it socialism, but avoiding too many beggars has always been a good way to gain respect as a society.
|
Here's a link showing the percent of federal taxes as well as state/local taxes paid, by income quintile:
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf
The top 1% made about 20.3% of national income, and paid about 21.5% of taxes at all levels (federal + state + local).
Our taxes are slightly progressive when you consider all of them put together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://newshour.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/2011/10/03/127929451_homepage_lede.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2011-10-05T193347Z_01_BTRE7941IDG00_RTROPTP_2_USA.JPG)
