Occupy Wall Street

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

There is a fixed amount of cash

I think your point is generally well taken, I think an economic policy that encourages luxury spending and discourages mass saving is sensible, but this is the big difference. The wealthy don't simply hoard a % of a fixed amount of money, keeping it from everyone else. They actually create wealth, especially when they do business (which should be encourage also, of course), and especially when they deal globally.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

When I look at the rich, I think about what recently happened in FOBL.

We have a closed financial system in FOBL that we use rather than OOTP's finances. There is a fixed amount of cash, and that cash enters the pool through contracts, then gets distributed to teams at the end of the year based on a number of performance factors.

Some seasons ago owners became pretty skilled at playing the system - they wouldn't spend as much for players but would win enough games to still make a profit. And they accumulated more and more money. They sat on it and didn't put it back into the system, which meant the other owners had less to spend. Salaries dropped, which led to more hoarding and things entered into a downward spiral that nearly killed the league.

So what did we do? We put a cap on how much you could bank, and put floors on what you could spend based on how much cash you had. Money flowed back into the system, and the league started coming back to life (there were other contributing factors, but this was a major one).

I don't have any problems with the rich earning money. Make as much as you can. But you know what (and I guess this will sound like trickle-down econ)? Friggin spend it. Don't sit on all the cash. People complain about celebs/the wealthy throwing $1M parties? Screw that. Throw those damned parties - blow all the effing money you want. Go hog wild. Preferably stateside, of course.

It's too bad that we can't link income tax to expenditures somehow. You made $10M? Great. You spent $7M of that? Fantastic. You get off easy on your tax. You, you only spent $1M? Well pay up, Mr. Stingy.

(Yes, I know this is really simplified and I'm sure there are a million reasons why this wouldn't work.)

Simplified, yes. But I like the thinking.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

When I look at the rich, I think about what recently happened in FOBL.

We have a closed financial system in FOBL that we use rather than OOTP's finances. There is a fixed amount of cash, and that cash enters the pool through contracts, then gets distributed to teams at the end of the year based on a number of performance factors.

Some seasons ago owners became pretty skilled at playing the system - they wouldn't spend as much for players but would win enough games to still make a profit. And they accumulated more and more money. They sat on it and didn't put it back into the system, which meant the other owners had less to spend. Salaries dropped, which led to more hoarding and things entered into a downward spiral that nearly killed the league.

So what did we do? We put a cap on how much you could bank, and put floors on what you could spend based on how much cash you had. Money flowed back into the system, and the league started coming back to life (there were other contributing factors, but this was a major one).

I don't have any problems with the rich earning money. Make as much as you can. But you know what (and I guess this will sound like trickle-down econ)? Friggin spend it. Don't sit on all the cash. People complain about celebs/the wealthy throwing $1M parties? Screw that. Throw those damned parties - blow all the effing money you want. Go hog wild. Preferably stateside, of course.

It's too bad that we can't link income tax to expenditures somehow. You made $10M? Great. You spent $7M of that? Fantastic. You get off easy on your tax. You, you only spent $1M? Well pay up, Mr. Stingy.

(Yes, I know this is really simplified and I'm sure there are a million reasons why this wouldn't work.)

That's basically the argument for the estate tax. Large accumulations of wealth are not productive for society. That's really our problem now. We have plenty of capital, but it's sitting in place.

[molson]

It's weird that "pro-business" has become like a swear word in politics when pretty much everyone agrees that hoarding wealth is not best for society.

[SFL Cat]

Actually that's not an argument for the estate tax. Estate taxes are about who gets the power to determine how assets from an estate are distributed: the owner of said assets, or the government.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by molson

It's weird that "pro-business" has become like a swear word in politics when pretty much everyone agrees that hoarding wealth is not best for society.

It's the "flavor" of the month. A continuation of the great struggle to determine who has the right to determine how wealth is spent/distributed.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by molson

In what way? That just sounds like typical OWS blabberspeak. Can you give specifics, and maybe a specific plan about what we should do about "the rich"? What can they, and people just below them, do about the "deleterious impact on society?" Again, do Clinton-era tax rates fix all this or do we need to do a lot more (I shudder to think what you have in mind.).

And who are the rich, just that 1% cutoff, or are you defining them some other way? I don't live paycheck to paycheck, am I part of the problem too if society considers that a good thing, and a worthwhile accomplishment? "Slobbering" as you would put it? I mean, I do get the liberal side of the tax the rich argument, but I would love to hear more about this societal "deleterious impact"....and if I start a band I'm also stealing that to be the name.

Many of the posts in this thread equate being rich with being successful (Jon's response to my post was a prime example of that). Making money regardless of the consequences to others--even if you worked hard--is not some sort of noble ideal. Many--but not all--of the rich have completely abandoned any sense of civic virtue. Traders on Wall Street, bailed out by taxpayers, have no issues--and, indeed, take pride--in screwing over customers. Executives of industrial firms, taking home millions in dollars in bonuses, have no qualms about destroying the environment. Executives of consumer product companies have no problems peddling unhealthy products to our kids.

Markets can encourage useful innovation and information. But they aren't to be taken as gospel. Sometimes the produce useful products, like the iPad. But increasingly, we as a society waste resource consuming status goods.

The popularity of businessmen in the political realm is another reflection of this phenomenon. Donald Trump gets taken seriously--or at least gets a forum--because he's rich. There is absolutely nothing enviable nor worthy about this man. Plenty of people make money or rise through the corporate ranks without being particularly smart or knowledgable about public issues (including economics). Why anyone gives particular weight to their policy views is beyond me.

That said, I don't want to demonize all of the "rich". Many of them do create good or better or cheaper products that benefit us all. I do think, though, that people should realize that markets aren't perfect--there are principle-agent problems, externality issues, etc.--and that just because because someone or something makes money, doesn't mean we should treat it as an unalloyed good.

[JPhillips]

No. The estate tax was designed as a way to break up large fortunes that would sit largely untaxed as they passed from generation to generation. The original arguments were more about the danger of massive hoards of cash sitting idle.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Again, liberals are the ones who are all concerned about "fairness" in taxation. Nothing is more fair than if everyone pays the same percentage, especially if you eliminate all the loopholes "rich" folks are able to use by hiring tax attorneys (in many cases ex-lawmakers) who know how to exploit them. Besides, if everyone had to write a check to the government on April 15, and saw just how much of their money from income went to the Fed (in personal income taxes, FICA, SS, etc., etc.) I think people would pay a LOT more attention to how Washington spends that money. Don't you think?

If everyone pays the same percentage, everyone should receive the same benefit from it. The rich receive a much larger benefit from a stable government and society. They receive a larger benefit from safe borders, accessible ports, and functioning roads. If paying in is supposed to be fair, so does paying out.

On your hypothetical, I think people would also pay a lot more attention if they realized how much the government does. Shut down roads, police, fire, schools, air travel, food safety, etc for awhile and tell me if people are still bitching about how their tax dollars are spent and how they can do it better.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If everyone pays the same percentage, everyone should receive the same benefit from it. The rich receive a much larger benefit from a stable government and society. They receive a larger benefit from safe borders, accessible ports, and functioning roads. If paying in is supposed to be fair, so does paying out.

On your hypothetical, I think people would also pay a lot more attention if they realized how much the government does. Shut down roads, police, fire, schools, air travel, food safety, etc for awhile and tell me if people are still bitching about how their tax dollars are spent and how they can do it better.

I think the poor benefit just as much as rich folks. If the government wasn't stable, no way in hell would they receive regular welfare assistance, food stamps, etc. So I guess I'm not seeing the merit in this argument.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No. The estate tax was designed as a way to break up large fortunes that would sit largely untaxed as they passed from generation to generation. The original arguments were more about the danger of massive hoards of cash sitting idle.

Okay, most folks who have saved enough to pass on an estate to their heirs have already paid taxes on most, if not all of the assets they have accumulated. So I guess you are making an argument that double taxation is fair.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I think the poor benefit just as much as rich folks. If the government wasn't stable, no way in hell would they receive regular welfare assistance, food stamps, etc. So I guess I'm not seeing the merit in this argument.

If the government collapses, who has more to lose? The guy with $2 million in assets, or the guy with $100 in assets? Who's home gets raided first? Who takes a bigger hit if the country is invaded by someone like China? A stable society will always benefit those who have more from a monetary standpoint.

Also, look at what we spend on welfare. It's a real small portion of our federal budget. It wasn't even half the size of TARP. It's a fraction of all the bailouts that were given out. As I said, those who have more receive far more from the government than those who don't when it pertains to income tax.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Okay, most folks who have saved enough to pass on an estate to their heirs have already paid taxes on most, if not all of the assets they have accumulated. So I guess you are making an argument that double taxation is fair.

It was created so that it didn't create generations of idle rich who sat on their money and never used it. It encourages individuals to be active with their money and thus produce a more vibrant economy. It also effects an insanely small amount of our population. And many of these people have benefited from the incredibly low capital gains tax rate, so if anything this evens it out. I'd be fine for dropping the estate tax if their investments were taxed at the same rate as our income.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If the government collapses, who has more to lose? The guy with $2 million in assets, or the guy with $100 in assets? Who's home gets raided first? Who takes a bigger hit if the country is invaded by someone like China? A stable society will always benefit those who have more from a monetary standpoint.

Also, look at what we spend on welfare. It's a real small portion of our federal budget. It wasn't even half the size of TARP. It's a fraction of all the bailouts that were given out. As I said, those who have more receive far more from the government than those who don't when it pertains to income tax.

Still not seeing it. If the communist takeover in Cuba was any indication, then the rich will simply move someplace where they can best protect their accumulated wealth. So in the end, it is the guy with $100 in assets who gets screwed, because he has nowhere to go and no way to protect his assets.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Many of the posts in this thread equate being rich with being successful (Jon's response to my post was a prime example of that). Making money regardless of the consequences to others--even if you worked hard--is not some sort of noble ideal. Many--but not all--of the rich have completely abandoned any sense of civic virtue. Traders on Wall Street, bailed out by taxpayers, have no issues--and, indeed, take pride--in screwing over customers. Executives of industrial firms, taking home millions in dollars in bonuses, have no qualms about destroying the environment. Executives of consumer product companies have no problems peddling unhealthy products to our kids.

Markets can encourage useful innovation and information. But they aren't to be taken as gospel. Sometimes the produce useful products, like the iPad. But increasingly, we as a society waste resource consuming status goods.

The popularity of businessmen in the political realm is another reflection of this phenomenon. Donald Trump gets taken seriously--or at least gets a forum--because he's rich. There is absolutely nothing enviable nor worthy about this man. Plenty of people make money or rise through the corporate ranks without being particularly smart or knowledgable about public issues (including economics). Why anyone gives particular weight to their policy views is beyond me.

That said, I don't want to demonize all of the "rich". Many of them do create good or better or cheaper products that benefit us all. I do think, though, that people should realize that markets aren't perfect--there are principle-agent problems, externality issues, etc.--and that just because because someone or something makes money, doesn't mean we should treat it as an unalloyed good.

So what changes would you like to see? Would you like to see wealthy individuals simply act a different way in their legal financial dealings on their own accord? Or do you want to see the government regulate business dealings differently? If it's the latter, shouldn't government be the enemy here? I think maybe OWS would be more government-focused if the wasn't for the tea party making protesting government un-cool.

One apparently credible German watchdog group just ranked the U.S #24 in a list of least corrupt nations. Well behind most wealthy nations. But I don't think this this is really perceived as a problem at all with OWS, or the currently popular general attacks on corporations and the rich.

Least corrupt place? New Zealand. Worst? Somalia, North Korea - CNN.com

The "rich" are individuals, they've made their money in a ton of different ways and I really don't think "screwing over customers", "destroying the environment" or "peddling unhealthy products to our kids." are so widespread in that group we can just say "rich" when we really mean "screwing over customers", or something else evil. Break down the wall of infamy and read about some of these people, and their backgrounds. There's a lot of impressive stories. On the other hand, I'd like to extend capital punishment to the worst financial criminals. I think the focus should be on that, or even publicizing the specific immoral but legal behavior, rather than just this societal turn on "the rich", which I think is very dangerous. Yes, it works the other way too, having a nice car and a mansion doesn't guarantee that you're some genius innovator - but it's much more likely that they were successful at SOMETHING legal than it is that they murdered and pillaged and screwed over customers and otherwise earned villainy. Why not attack the actions, or the lack of laws, or whatever, instead of just trying to tie bad things generally with people who have found success? Should we hate Justin Bieber? Robert Kraft? Mark Cuban? Peyton Manning? Barrack Obama? Ted Kennedy? Phil Knight? Bernie Madoff? Mark Zuckerberg? Scott Rothstein, Florida lawyer imprisoned for stealing millions in Ponzi scheme? The CEO of Priceline? Paul Orfalea, the founder of Kinkos? Of those, the only 3 I'm sure are bad guys we're supposed to hate are Madoff, Rothstein, and Bieber. It's easy and more effective to target them, and those like them that are under the radar, then just vaguely, the "rich", "many of whom do bad things". Which ones are doing bad things? If the bad things are illegal, then damn it, we should be prosecuting, and the only the government can do that. If the bad things are just immoral, then more public information about such things may shift buying patters (or, maybe not, but that's really up to the 99% then, isn't it, if they have the info, but could care less, then they care less.)

Edit: Much fewer than 99% of the people, all pissed off, could easily get an immoral CEO fired, the government to prosecute someone, or could even probably get the government to pass some specific legislation. The general attacks on the 1% - I don't know what the goal is there, but obviously they're not going to accomplish anything with that group as a whole, because the REAL 99% (the actual number, not the brand), see through the bullshit on that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Still not seeing it. If the communist takeover in Cuba was any indication, then the rich will simply move someplace where they can best protect their accumulated wealth. So in the end, it is the guy with $100 in assets who gets screwed, because he has nowhere to go and no way to protect his assets.

These people don't have assets hidden in a bunker or vault. And it's not some small island nation like Cuba. If the country collapses, the financial industry collapses in turn (which would happen to every major financial company), their assets are gone. If they were lucky enough to store some gold bars in their basement and can get out with them, great. But if everything collapses, you aren't just going to call up your bank and tell them to start sending the checks to a new address.

If you're going to use communist takeover as your example, why not use the Soviet Union where they went out and slaughtered most of the wealthy land owners.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

These people don't have assets hidden in a bunker or vault.

True. They've got it squirreled away in various banks around the planet. In your scenario, they might lose some of their wealth, but more than likely they'd have enough to live comfortably someplace else.

And you're right. If China did take over the USA, all arguments about haves and have-nots would become irrelevant. I was simply using the hypothetical scenario you proposed to support your argument.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

True. They've got it squirreled away in various banks around the planet. In your scenario, they might lose some of their wealth, but more than likely they'd have enough to live comfortably someplace else.

And you're right. If China did take over the USA, all arguments about haves and have-nots would become irrelevant. I was simply using the hypothetical scenario you proposed to support your argument.

I don't think you understand. If the US collapses, almost all banks go under. And even if they didn't, they would lose far more wealth than anyone else. I don't see how you could possibly argue that a stable government and safe country doesn't benefit those with more money than those without. Or that functioning ports, roads, and air travel benefits those with more wealth than those without. Wealthy individuals pay more because they receive far more.

The 2008 bailouts just put that into light even more. Do you realize that Citigroup alone received twice as much money in bailouts as we spend on food stamps for the entire country in one year?

[SFL Cat]

Again...how do they get more benefit more than anyone else? Everyone benefits from ports, roads and air travel, not just the 1%. And as JPhillips mentioned, most of us already pay for the ports, roads and air travel anyway through various local, state and federal levies. Because unless it is printing money from thin air, a government only gets the money it spends on these projects from the taxpayers.

And speaking of bailouts, if the end goal was to REALLY to redistribute income to assist the 14 million in this country who are chronically unemployed, take the amount that was spent and divide that by the number of people it was supposed to help. Then look at the average amount that segment of the population actually received. Then ask yourself where the rest of that money went? Yes, big government at work is a beautiful thing. Shovel ready indeed.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by molson

So what changes would you like to see? Would you like to see wealthy individuals simply act a different way in their legal financial dealings on their own accord? Or do you want to see the government regulate business dealings differently? If it's the latter, shouldn't government be the enemy here? I think maybe OWS would be more government-focused if the wasn't for the tea party making protesting government un-cool.

One apparently credible German watchdog group just ranked the U.S #24 in a list of least corrupt nations. Well behind most wealthy nations. But I don't think this this is really perceived as a problem at all with OWS, or the currently popular general attacks on corporations and the rich.

Least corrupt place? New Zealand. Worst? Somalia, North Korea - CNN.com

The "rich" are individuals, they've made their money in a ton of different ways and I really don't think "screwing over customers", "destroying the environment" or "peddling unhealthy products to our kids." are so widespread in that group we can just say "rich" when we really mean "screwing over customers", or something else evil. Break down the wall of infamy and read about some of these people, and their backgrounds. There's a lot of impressive stories. On the other hand, I'd like to extend capital punishment to the worst financial criminals. I think the focus should be on that, or even publicizing the specific immoral but legal behavior, rather than just this societal turn on "the rich", which I think is very dangerous. Yes, it works the other way too, having a nice car and a mansion doesn't guarantee that you're some genius innovator - but it's much more likely that they were successful at SOMETHING legal than it is that they murdered and pillaged and screwed over customers and otherwise earned villainy. Why not attack the actions, or the lack of laws, or whatever, instead of just trying to tie bad things generally with people who have found success? Should we hate Justin Bieber? Robert Kraft? Mark Cuban? Peyton Manning? Barrack Obama? Ted Kennedy? Phil Knight? Bernie Madoff? Mark Zuckerberg? Scott Rothstein, Florida lawyer imprisoned for stealing millions in Ponzi scheme? The CEO of Priceline? Paul Orfalea, the founder of Kinkos? Of those, the only 3 I'm sure are bad guys we're supposed to hate are Madoff, Rothstein, and Bieber. It's easy and more effective to target them, and those like them that are under the radar, then just vaguely, the "rich", "many of whom do bad things". Which ones are doing bad things? If the bad things are illegal, then damn it, we should be prosecuting, and the only the government can do that. If the bad things are just immoral, then more public information about such things may shift buying patters (or, maybe not, but that's really up to the 99% then, isn't it, if they have the info, but could care less, then they care less.)

Edit: Much fewer than 99% of the people, all pissed off, could easily get an immoral CEO fired, the government to prosecute someone, or could even probably get the government to pass some specific legislation. The general attacks on the 1% - I don't know what the goal is there, but obviously they're not going to accomplish anything with that group as a whole, because the REAL 99% (the actual number, not the brand), see through the bullshit on that.

As I said, I don't demonize rich people. But I demonize some for the reasons they became rich.

As for what changes I'd like to see, it involves both a change in social norms and laws.

Re: social norms, as I said, people should consider the consequences their actions have. CEOs should feel guilty about taking huge bonuses while decimating their middle-class work force; marketing VPs should feel guilty about about pushing unhealthy products on kids; professors should feel guilty about encouraging the graduate education of students they know won't get jobs.

Re: laws, we should expect the government to provide services that accord with its basic functions. It should coordinate the provision of basic public goods--roads, safety, education, health care, welfare--that benefit us all. It should also coordinate the punishment of activities--by making people internalize their externalities--that hurt us all.

Further, the government should ensure markets function properly. One major failure of the liberal platform has been out inability to focus on the fact we believe in markets, too. But we also realize they aren't perfect and that traditional analysis doesn't necessarily apply to areas like health care, education and finance. For instance, I personally believe it's a moral imperative to ensure all people have access to health care, but I also see policy benefits in providing these services, too. First, by disassociating health care from employment, it can increase mobility in the labor market. Second, by more active engagement with the poor and unhealthy, we can catch problems earlier and lower the cost they later burden the rest of us with.

I disagree government is not a focus of OWS. Most protestors realize the government provided the bailouts they hate. Most protestors realize that corporations own a number of politicians. I'd argue that study you cite probably underestimates the amount of corruption in the country because it focuses on quid pro quo activity, rather than the much more invidious capture that goes on because of things like the revolving door, campaign donations, etc. But, again, even this goes back to the focus on being "rich".

And to the extent you can fault the OWS protestors for not being critical of government, the flip can be said of the other side and corporations. At least governments provide us all with some say; corporations can control major parts of our lives without any representation. Even ardent free market enthusiasts should be skeptical--corporations are, by definition, entities working in restraint of trade. They bind employees with contracts. Prices within firms gets set by central mechanisms, not price. They actively would like to see less competition, not more of it.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

As I said, I don't demonize rich people. But I demonize some for the reasons they became rich.

As for what changes I'd like to see, it involves both a change in social norms and laws.

Re: social norms, as I said, people should consider the consequences their actions have. CEOs should feel guilty about taking huge bonuses while decimating their middle-class work force; marketing VPs should feel guilty about about pushing unhealthy products on kids; professors should feel guilty about encouraging the graduate education of students they know won't get jobs.

Re: laws, we should expect the government to provide services that accord with its basic functions. It should coordinate the provision of basic public goods--roads, safety, education, health care, welfare--that benefit us all. It should also coordinate the punishment of activities--by making people internalize their externalities--that hurt us all.

Further, the government should ensure markets function properly. One major failure of the liberal platform has been out inability to focus on the fact we believe in markets, too. But we also realize they aren't perfect and that traditional analysis doesn't necessarily apply to areas like health care, education and finance. For instance, I personally believe it's a moral imperative to ensure all people have access to health care, but I also see policy benefits in providing these services, too. First, by disassociating health care from employment, it can increase mobility in the labor market. Second, by more active engagement with the poor and unhealthy, we can catch problems earlier and lower the cost they later burden the rest of us with.

I disagree government is not a focus of OWS. Most protestors realize the government provided the bailouts they hate. Most protestors realize that corporations own a number of politicians. I'd argue that study you cite probably underestimates the amount of corruption in the country because it focuses on quid pro quo activity, rather than the much more invidious capture that goes on because of things like the revolving door, campaign donations, etc. But, again, even this goes back to the focus on being "rich".

And to the extent you can fault the OWS protestors for not being critical of government, the flip can be said of the other side and corporations. At least governments provide us all with some say; corporations can control major parts of our lives without any representation. Even ardent free market enthusiasts should be skeptical--corporations are, by definition, entities working in restraint of trade. They bind employees with contracts. Prices within firms gets set by central mechanisms, not price. They actively would like to see less competition, not more of it.

Nice in theory, but it only works if someone is closely watching the watchdogs. If you look at history, most corruption has resided with those in political power. As they say, power corrupts, even in those who wield it with only the best intentions at heart.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Again...how do they get more benefit more than anyone else? Everyone benefits from ports, roads and air travel, not just the 1%. And as JPhillips mentioned, most of us already pay for the ports, roads and air travel anyway through various local, state and federal levies. Because unless it is printing money from thin air, a government only gets the money it spends on these projects from the taxpayers.

And speaking of bailouts, if the end goal was to REALLY to redistribute income to assist the 14 million in this country who are chronically unemployed, take the amount that was spent and divide that by the number of people it was supposed to help. Then look at the average amount that segment of the population actually received. Then ask yourself where the rest of that money went? Yes, big government at work is a beautiful thing. Shovel ready indeed.

Who loses more money if the ports were to all shut down? You or the guy who owns a ton of shares in Wal-Mart (or any major retail company)? Same goes for road and air travel. Same goes for all the major banks. While it would be a mess for everyone, if none of those banks got bailed out, none of us would lose nearly as much as wealthy individuals. The more you have, the more you have to lose from a lack of stability in the government.

I'm also not sure I understand your point on the 2nd paragraph. What numbers are you using? Need some substance, not talking points.

[panerd]

Fuck those Americans making more than $1.21 an hour!

Oh wait class envy only works for Americans who want people who make more than them to pay more taxes? OK carry on. Of course JPhillips and Rainmaker and Jcjjdnh would be willing to make $1 an hour if the global economy were balanced out. Oh they wouldn't? Why not? Its all about the poor for them right? Of just Americans who make more than them? Well thats not class envy, right? Right? Oh it is?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Fuck those Americans making more than $1.21 an hour!

Oh wait class envy only works for Americans who want people who make more than them to pay more taxes? OK carry on. Of course JPhillips and Rainmaker and Jcjjdnh would be willing to make $1 an hour if the global economy were balanced out. Oh they wouldn't? Why not? Its all about the poor for them right? Of just Americans who make more than them? Well thats not class envy, right? Right? Oh it is?

What does this have to do with the arguments being made here? Some people have talked about fairness in taxation. I am pointing out that a flat tax is unfair because you benefit more from a stable society and all the perks that come with it with the more money you have. That someone who makes a lot of money benefits far more from things than someone who doesn't. That is why they pay more and that is fair.

I've bashed OWS pretty relentlessly in this thread for the class warfare and entitlement stuff. This is about the notion that progressive taxation is somehow unfair to the wealthy.

I live in one of the best neighborhoods of Chicago. And I know that if our government collapsed, my part of town is the first part where people come with their pitchforks.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And here I thought the lesson would be to pay your ticket so you don't have to go to court

SI

OK I guess I learned two things. Maybe three, but one of them I won't have the opportunity to put into practice ever again.

1) Send in proof of insurance in person...don't mail it. It may not get processed or even lost.
2) When you get notice that your proof of insurance wasn't received...don't wait until the last possible day to go to the courthouse to correct the problem. Especially the first business day of a new century. Because after years of preparation the only entity to actually experience a Y2K problem was the County courthouse, whose computers were down, and it would take them a week to look up my ticket manually.
3)Don't wear a suit to traffic court, where the quality of your attire is directly proportional to any fine you may receive.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Fuck those Americans making more than $1.21 an hour!

Oh wait class envy only works for Americans who want people who make more than them to pay more taxes? OK carry on. Of course JPhillips and Rainmaker and Jcjjdnh would be willing to make $1 an hour if the global economy were balanced out. Oh they wouldn't? Why not? Its all about the poor for them right? Of just Americans who make more than them? Well thats not class envy, right? Right? Oh it is?

Yes because the only choices are a flat tax or everyone making 1.21 an hour.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

Fuck those Americans making more than $1.21 an hour!

Oh wait class envy only works for Americans who want people who make more than them to pay more taxes? OK carry on. Of course JPhillips and Rainmaker and Jcjjdnh would be willing to make $1 an hour if the global economy were balanced out. Oh they wouldn't? Why not? Its all about the poor for them right? Of just Americans who make more than them? Well thats not class envy, right? Right? Oh it is?

It would make for a more interesting world. Is the idea that everyone would make $1.21 or that we would still have a class of super rich to go along with the super poor like in most countries that have wages similar to this? It would certainly change the market for items and it'd be interesting to see what costs of different items look like in such a system where you don't have a poorer 3rd world class subsidizing a 1st world class.

For instance, I can't see the cost of college being very high when there's no funding bubble. However, those institutions are where most of our research and development come from these days. On the other hand, housing costs would probably be lower, particularly in large cities, but there would be more cities and less density. It's interesting to think about.

Realistically, this is what the theme of the 2nd half of the 20th century and the first half of the 21st century is. All the talk of "Are our children going to have a better lifestyle than our parents?" The answer, if one looks from a purely wealth distribution standpoint, has to be "no". We were coming off a World War that destroyed the infrastructures of all of the 1st world economies, save our own. Having the world's only functioning 1st world economy makes it pretty easy to control the wealth and manufacturing of things. But that can only last so long as other economies would get on their feet. Also, there's a benefit to burning things down and starting over- typically, you start out with a better, more modern approach so it's not a surprise that we are getting surpassed. People don't like change but when it's forced on them as the only option, they tend to pick better options when having to lay all out on the table instead of it being "old way" versus "new way".

One could even say this half century will be the greatest giveaway of the modern era as our percentage of wealth in the world will probably be cut in half from 1/4 to 1/8th and, frankly, there's not much we can do about it. There were some chances to slow it down, if we had invested our government money more wisely but that seems unlikely now as there is no vision and the only major plans all involve cutting back and not progressing forward.

However, is that necessarily bad? Would you rather live in a richer America in the 60s or a relatively poorer one with the internet, gene therapy, and flying cars (sure- had to throw it in) in 50 years? Hell, even compare our parent's generation to our generation. America has become poorer, relative to the world. However, my parents had less toys than I did and our future kids will have more toys that we did as the cost of producing toys has gone down (tho one could argue for quality over quantity and American protectionism).

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

However, my parents had less toys than I did and our future kids will have more toys that we did as the cost of producing toys has gone down (tho one could argue for quality over quantity and American protectionism).

It's an interesting comparison because we have different priorities than the last generation, and the generation before it. We don't save as much and we borrow a lot more, for everything - homes, cars, education, even on credit cards for crap we don't need. We're a lot more willing to live closer to the edge of financial ruin in exchange for stuff and vacations. My parents were very, very stable and solidly middle class and there was one family vacation ever that involved a plane. One used car for the family. And yet, they made a lot more than I do adjusted for inflation. They saved a shitload more, probably because of their parents who grew up during the depression. My grandparents probably thought my parents were spendthrifts.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

It's an interesting comparison because we have different priorities than the last generation, and the generation before it. We don't save as much and we borrow a lot more, for everything - homes, cars, education, even on credit cards for crap we don't need. We're a lot more willing to live closer to the edge of financial ruin in exchange for stuff and vacations. My parents were very, very stable and solidly middle class and there was one family vacation ever that involved a plane. One used car for the family. And yet, they made a lot more than I do adjusted for inflation. They saved a shitload more, probably because of their parents who grew up during the depression. My grandparents probably thought my parents were spendthrifts.

I wanted to try and pull out a random metric and it came to mind. I think you're completely right here. Tho one thing about vacations is that air fare cost has been pretty flat for the last 20 years. And I mean unadjusted for inflation. It still only costs $300 to fly cross country, if you shop around and are flexible. I bet a lot of flights cost more in 1980 than they did today. That's insane, if you think about it, considering $300 in 1980 is worth $660 today so costs have been cut in half. Meanwhile, the cost of gas has more than tripled since then so the cost of the trips is a lot different. On the whole, tho, I think it's more of a generational preference. I have fond memories of piling into the van with my parents and going across the country but I don't think nearly as many people do that sort of thing today.

That said, we're consolidating the airline industry by leaps and bounds: United absorbed Continental and US Airways, Delta absorbed Northwest, American is in Chapter 11, and Southwest is eliminating the only other serious budget competitor in Airtran and raising rates. Being able to fly across country for a couple of day's average per capita in wages will be a thing of the past soon.

SI

[SFL Cat]

[quote=RainMaker;2576377]Who loses more money if the ports were to all shut down? You or the guy who owns a ton of shares in Wal-Mart (or any major retail company)? Same goes for road and air travel. Same goes for all the major banks. While it would be a mess for everyone, if none of those banks got bailed out, none of us would lose nearly as much as wealthy individuals. The more you have, the more you have to lose from a lack of stability in the government.

I'm also not sure I understand your point on the 2nd paragraph. What numbers are you using? Need some substance, not talking points.[/QUOTE

A lot of people own shares in Wal-Mart and other retailers, and I guarantee that most of them aren't super-rich fat cats. But again, in the scenario you describe, everybody suffers. If Wal-Mart or other retailers' businesses are disrupted, guess who pays the price? Employees. Say hello to massive layoffs. If supply becomes limited, say hello to higher prices. Everything is interrelated.

As for the numbers, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...ent.aspx#page1

[SFL Cat]

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=JY8LKII_MNA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

A lot of people own shares in Wal-Mart and other retailers, and I guarantee that most of them aren't super-rich fat cats. But again, in the scenario you describe, everybody suffers. If Wal-Mart or other retailers' businesses are disrupted, guess who pays the price? Employees. Say hello to massive layoffs. If supply becomes limited, say hello to higher prices. Everything is interrelated.

As for the numbers, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...ent.aspx#page1

Of course it hurts others, but from a strictly monetary standpoint, it hurts those with more money. The person with a million dollars has more invested into the economy than the person with $1000. I don't know how you can continue to argue this point.

As for unemployment, that's an insurance you pay. Every person who collects unemployment (or who has a job) pays the same amount into the fund. Besides being a regressive tax, it also pays out more to wealthy individuals despite them paying in the same amount as those receive less. I don't know how this has anything to do with income taxes though as unemployment is an insurance.

[RainMaker]

Also, here is your report on the Federal Reserve. $16 trillion was given to banks and other financial institutions. Many of those are foreign banks . There is still a trillion dollars outstanding.

There is no guidelines for who received money and why. It was completely up to the discretion of the Federal Reserve.

So while complaining about unemployed people receiving benefits they paid in for, foreign banks who do not pay taxes in this country received trillions of dollars from us.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i still don't know what to make of ows. i wish i wasn't so cynical.

when people ask i usually bring up reagan's speech to the un. to paraphrase, 'if aliens invaded we'd all set aside our differences and work together.'

substitute greed for aliens. if evil banks/corps are what end up uniting the world i'm all for it.

[chadritt]

How do the cops not realize that eventually someone they arrest in LA is going to be a writer on a known show with plenty of media access? My Occupy LA Arrest, by Patrick Meighan is starting to make the rounds, one of the family guy writers was arrested and blogged about it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by chadritt

How do the cops not realize that eventually someone they arrest in LA is going to be a writer on a known show with plenty of media access? My Occupy LA Arrest, by Patrick Meighan is starting to make the rounds, one of the family guy writers was arrested and blogged about it.

He should have started with the last part. But the order there exposes the real priorities of this movement.

[molson]

Dola - I saw that OWS Boise was cleaning up foreclosed properties. I don't quite get the angle there, but OWS would really enhance their reputation if they did some community service to actually help people who've been impacted by whatever evils they're opposing, instead of just camping out for some reason and taunting and defying local governments and police into action. I know actually helping people wouldn't give them the attention they crave, like an arrest does, but it's something to think about for the more sincere occupiers.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Occupiers prepare for winter and eviction

Residents and supporters of Occupy Pittsburgh dug in for the winter Sunday, spending much of the day cleaning their muddy Downtown encampment in Mellon Green park and preparing for the possible arrival of police as early as today.

BNY Mellon, which owns the park, initially gave occupiers permission to remain after they began camping at Sixth Avenue and Grant Street on Oct. 15.

On Friday, however, the company, citing safety concerns, told occupiers they needed to move their tents and personal belongings by noon Sunday or face a court order evicting them as trespassers.

Instead of complying, occupiers "seized" the park Sunday, renaming it "The People's Park" and announcing they will give BNY Mellon an eviction notice of their own this morning. Occupy Pittsburgh protesters plan to continue pushing for a fairer economic and political system, and they're not budging from the park, said union organizer Ken Miller.

This is the company I used to work for.

Just have to laugh at this. You can't kick us out...cause we are kicking YOU out!!

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Also, here is your report on the Federal Reserve. $16 trillion was given to banks and other financial institutions. Many of those are foreign banks . There is still a trillion dollars outstanding.

There is no guidelines for who received money and why. It was completely up to the discretion of the Federal Reserve.

So while complaining about unemployed people receiving benefits they paid in for, foreign banks who do not pay taxes in this country received trillions of dollars from us.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

The Federal Reserve should not exist. Its clearly one of the most fucked up things this country has ever put into being. They gave away more than our deficit in free money? Come on, man.

[lcjjdnh]

Some interesting polling numbers:
Section 2: Occupy Wall Street and Inequality | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

A flat tax wouldn't reduce the tax rate for the wealthy. They already pay a low tax rate. Most people with money are making their money through capital gains and only being taxed at 15%. The middle class are those who are taxed at the highest rates in this country as they don't have enough to make large capital gains returns and too much to fall into the low tax brackets that low income earners get. So any talk of a flat tax for "fairness" would have to include taxing capital gains at the same rate as income, something I'm sure those felating the wealthy would oppose.

I think I heard on NPR the other day that Newt wants a flat tax of 15% and capital gains at a whopping 0%.

[RainMaker]

Would love to hear how Newt plans to keep the country out of debt with that plan.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Would love to hear how Newt plans to keep the country out of debt with that plan.

You know how marijuana was moral when Newt was doing it but immoral now that it's other people? I'm sure it will be the same way with deficits while he's in office as opposed to deficits when Obama is president.

[molson]

Originally Posted by mckerney

You know how marijuana was moral when Newt was doing it but immoral now that it's other people? I'm sure it will be the same way with deficits while he's in office as opposed to deficits when Obama is president.

I think he'd still speak his mind on deficits but like with Obama, there'd be enough congressional opposition to keep his ideas untested and pure, and thus, ideologically perfect in his mind and in the mind of his supporters.

[RainMaker]

I'm just saying that if you cut revenues that dramatically, I'd like to hear where the cuts are coming from. Unless he plans to slash the Defense budget by 50% or more, his tax plan isn't going to work.

[SportsDino]

Well, don't tell the poor people, but the plan is to cut all the taxes and cash out tons of money from the system... have another collapse to loot the 401k money, and slash spending to the bone as the plan for balancing out the budget (with a euphemistic name like austerity).

Once everyone is feeling the pain it then becomes easier to push a general tax increase on everyone to 'share the pain' with a moral guilt trip about euthanizing grandma because her social security ran out, so we must do something (pay more taxes). Of course timing is everything, all of that money taken out before will have been fairly 'taxed' at whatever silly rate the republicrats manage to pass. The new tax rate will be on future income, but that won't be us current rich folk, it will be shlub innovators trying to build the next Microsoft or Apple who pay the high ugly tax rates. Screw em, I worked hard ass-raping America for my money, some scrawny nerd who invents fusion batteries for electric cars can be vilified by the masses!

-----

Seriously though, the flat taxers are complete idiots ignoring just about every mathematical evaluation of progressive tax rates for almost a century now, not to mention the consumer spending the U.S. economy depends on and which will decrease most dramatically if the tax burden on relatively poorer people goes up in any fashion (by poorer I mean you lazy ass $50K per year people). Which will happen if any flat income tax passes that is revenue neutral.

If you want a flat tax, kill government spending that benefits companies that do not need it. Most bloated budgets in the government are those revolving around military, which pays million dollar annual salaries to 'experts' who mostly are amateur golf players who spend maybe 40 hours out of the year 'consulting'. Or will spend $200 million per plane with buggy software or other defects, but can't spring $200 million to equip 20,000 troops with body armor.

Of course the tax and spend 'conservatives' on this board will no doubt state that the economy would crash if such a wasteful bit of spending is abolished. Millions of dollars directly injected into the economy in the form of food stamps or Medicare be damned, the real thing we need to keep afloat is over-margined and often under quality speculative military hardware that won't even win the wars we actually end up fighting (and those we shouldn't really bother with anyway).

That all said the Occupy 'movement' is laughable and has been from the start. If even a fraction of them would mobilize under a strategic mind they might have been capable of swaying at least some minor changes. The joy of attacking the nebulous and shouting about while doing nothing is the surest way to siphon off perfectly useful anger into dull apathy.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm just saying that if you cut revenues that dramatically, I'd like to hear where the cuts are coming from. Unless he plans to slash the Defense budget by 50% or more, his tax plan isn't going to work.

Yeah, you can't seriously talk about fighting the deficit when your tax plan will add a trillion dollars to it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Yeah, you can't seriously talk about fighting the deficit when your tax plan will add a trillion dollars to it.

That's what I'm getting at, I don't think he's really serious. If let's say, he won the nomination, and it was revealed on the eve of the election that Obama was behind the Sandusky Penn St. coverup, and Newt became president, we're not having a 15% flat income tax and a 0% capital gains tax. That's just nonsense for his base to show them what a super conservative he is, ala Obama in the '08 Democratic primaries.

Maybe if you pressed him on it and he had a few drinks, he might try to justify it with some kind of crazy widespread theoretical government reduction that isn't reality either.

[RainMaker]

But how is running up a huge deficit remotely a conservative idea? Shouldn't he be getting destroyed for this?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But how is running up a huge deficit remotely a conservative idea? Shouldn't he be getting destroyed for this?

I'm sure he claims that it wouldn't run up the deficit and "government could only spend what it had" on his watch or something. It's not about the details. It's like one of the SNL Republican debate sketches a few weeks back - When Herman Cain was in the lead, the moderator was questioning the 9/9/9 plan, and the Cain character explained that he didn't expect to be taken seriously - he was just trying to get a Fox News Show at 9PM.