Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Define "Fair Share" Please

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 7, 2011, 11:34 p.m. EST by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

someone please define what one's "fair share" is & how they came to their conclusion.

308 Comments

308 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Fair share of what?

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

Clearly NOT the OP's intelligence.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

I supervised people for many years. To be fair to them I couldn't treat everyone the same. They got treated based on their merits. Those who worked harder or contributed more BENEFITED more than those who did not. In contrast, our country's merit system is UTTERLY FAILED - no reward to people for working hard., i.e. three decades of stagnant wages. But the meritocracy goes out its way to reward the wealthiest because they supposedly need the biggest tax breaks to create more jobs. WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

really? That hasn't been my experience at all. The jobs will come when your president stops threatening to confiscate their profits with higher taxes. Why should I risk my capital if it's only going to go to the government so they can dole it out to their favorite groups in exchange for their votes?

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

First, I would ask you not to assume who my presidential choices are. It's assumption on your part. Second, my experience has been of stagnant wages over the last three decades while corporations & big banks are making record profits, and the wealthiest citizens have gotten richer and richer by some 250++%, over that same time period. Third, you can blow smoke in the air all day about welfare this and welfare that, but be sure you include subsidies and corporate welfare and we'll have something to talk about that isn't just partisan bullshit.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

I never said I support corporate welfare. I am against all subsidies. I guess you figure since everyone else is getting a subsidy you want your share is that it?

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

If you and I share a pie, how do we divvy it up? who gets what share? who contributed what? I just don't think it is right for a few greedy people at the top to hog all the pie and leave 1/3 of the country with crumbs. something ain't right.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

then go out & start your own business & see how easy it is. look - I have a business, I need someone to perform certain tasks, I offer a wage, you either accept the offer or reject it. If I cannot get anyone to take my offer, I increase the wage offer. That is how life works. It's called supply & demand.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

I don't reject anything you just said. Here is what I do reject - the policies and ideas that rig the system to undervalue workers to the point that they are reduced to living off the damn crumbs. Why has income equality risen so drastically for the few at the top over the last three decades, while everybody else got left behind? It started with trickle down economics. Please don't make me laugh if you are going to defend that tired dog and pony show. Are you personally benefiting from the bush tax cuts or are you getting screwed too.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

what policies specifically "undervalue" workers? everyone got a tax cut under the Bush tax cuts by the way & yes my middle income salary saw more money in my paycheck.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

I don't know what all specific policies led to all this, and I don't necessarily blame one side more than the other. All I know is we need to change the course.

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people. • 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007. • 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans. • 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings. • A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement. • 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year. • Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008. • Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975. • For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together. • In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one. • As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets. • The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. • Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008. • In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector. • The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago. • In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks. • More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying. • or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011. • This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour. • Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years. • Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009. • The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

I know that this amount of income inequality is a huge problem and it needs to addressed. Take you and me, we probably agree on some things but we're rolling around in class warfare. over how the pie is split up. I don't want no handouts, I do want to see the country moving in a direction where people who work hard for a living can expect to live without being on the doorstep of poverty, and when the job creators do well, they bring up the ones who work hard for them. Is that wrong?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

name one specific policy. you seem to know a lot of other stuff. I think you should know about one specific policy if you are going to mention "policies" in a debate. you mention executive's paychecks, why dont you mention professional athletes paychecks, or hollywood movie star's paychecks?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

Citizen's United comes to mind.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

what is citizens united? citizens united "rigged the system"? you didnt answer why you didnt mention professional athletes or hollywood actors when mentioning company executives.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

United Citizens v FEC. The Supreme Court basically decided that money was equivalent to speech in a political campaign, and that Congress couldn't limit the amount of money an organization could spend to support their chosen candidate(s).

in other words, corporations are persons.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

I am not in favor of special interests. I am in favor of holding the right people accountable which is our elected officials. They are the ones that are accountable to us. they are the ones, who took an oath. your never going to get rid of people - in one form or another - from offering money for favors.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

maybe we can't rid money from politics entirely, but we shouldn't pass laws that make it easy for them either. lol. gotta go.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so you are blaming Citizens United instead of the Supreme Court? Take it up with the Court? Citizens United is entitled to their opinion aren't they? Who died & made you king?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

are you in favor of special interests being able to have unlimited power to influence politics?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

A fair share for the 99% would presumably be 99%

[-] 1 points by kbreit (2) 12 years ago

Someone who starts a multi-billion dollar business deserves more then a cashier at a gas station. Sink or Swim. That's capitalism and that's the US. Don't like? Live somewhere else.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

Personally, I don't think your average entrepreneur deserves any more than anyone else (your average sanitation worker, for example-whch is an extremely vital, really an essential, service), but that's just my personal moral position and not a serious political proposition.

Invention and innovation should be its own reward as it is for any school child. There is no objective social reason why any material incentive should be attached to it. Capitalism is a global system. Anywhere we live we are under its yolk. I am culturally an American and could not imagine living anywhere else, but that does not give me any special attachment to the political, social and economic system here, just like an Egyptian today might love Egypt culturally but have absolutely no sypathy with the existing Egyptian state.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually more like 98%), saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.

This isn't 'fair'. Not by any stretch of the imagination. But it is the ugly truth. The prosperity of an entire world is now being compromised because of a tiny but powerful filthy rich minority.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

you can't multiply wealth by dividing it.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Nor can you do so by concentrating it.

Next.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

no - you have to grow the pie. who does that? people with the wealth.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

On rare occasion when they grow something worth having, they overprice it, oversell it, and reap maximum profit for minimum effort. However, many of their contributions to society are crap. In which case, they still overprice it, oversell it, and reap maximum profit for minimum effort.

In other words, they grow the pie to some extent. But they end up consuming whatever they have grown plus another slice just for good measure.

You want statistics?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

statistics on what?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Their share of the pie.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

who's share?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Take it easy. You don't need to play dumb. You are dumb.

The rest of you:

Scroll up a few blocks and read the most recent statistics regarding the distribution of income. Also how a heavy concentration of wealth caused the first Great Depression.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

first of all - why are you so concerned with the distribution of income? why are you so concerned about what other people have. Maybe if you focused on getting some skills, & getting a job you'd be much better off. you are distracted by class envy.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Put down 'Psychology for Dummies'. Its not working for you.

Next.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

fair share???
lets go back to the tax rates under that great republican Eisenhower
that would be fair share - top tax rate 91%

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Neato graph, but effective tax rates and quoted tax rates are two different things. If it would make an idiot like you happy, I'd agree to a 90% rate, if I only ended up paying 15%. Smarten up.

You might want to look also at how many people now pay NOTHING. The hated Bush tax cuts let millions of lower income people out of all responsibility for their federal government.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

name calling - it does tell the truth about the caller
if you need a math lesson, COMPARE numbers from 50 years ago

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Yeah, I saw the graph. But those rates were easily avoidable. It was an idiotic system. Reagan reduced rates to 28% in exchange for ending the games. Rates since then have crept higher and more people have been absolved of responsibility completely. Now, almost half pay NOTHING.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

and so do the bottom 47% who pay zero

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

First, that 53% number was an prediction from a think-tank, and it turned out to be wrong.

Second, it ignores the numerous taxes that even the low-income pay, most of which are regressive: sales tax, property tax (paid directly or through rent), utility taxes, taxes not called taxes such as vehicle regisitration fees, driver's license fees, Social Security, Medicare, etc.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

it's not from a think tank it's an IRS figure. the top 53% pay all that other stuff too. everyone should have skin in the game. Flat tax - the rich still pay way more than you do.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 12 years ago

Define "honest work" please. You know, "honest work" is for fools these days.

[-] 1 points by bestrevolution (3) 12 years ago

the amount of time you personally put into the product or service, divided by the ( sale price minus material costs.)

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 12 years ago

i would be happy for starters with making predatory lending as illegal as it is immoral. Call theft theft like it is for any other criminal.

And everyone gets a cupcake.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

I'd like to to make social engineering illegal so government cant force banks to loosen lending standards to try and even out home ownership among ethnic groups. See Community Reinvestment Act & go talk to Rep Barney Frank.

[-] 2 points by yoss33 (269) 12 years ago

yes, very good point, especially regarding ethnic groups; their is racism built into the system, or in the people in control of the system at the very least.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 12 years ago

The people who do not pay their fair share get around the 35% cap by taking dividends instead of salary. So they pay 15% capital gains tax... if that. That is a lower percentage than me (you see we have a graduated tax system). That is not a fair share. They buy government and TV channels and sit around laughing because people like you do their bidding.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

Pop Quiz - when GWB gave us the cap gain tax cut did revenue to the govt : A) go up B) go down or C) stay the same?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

yea - and that 15% contribution to the tax revenue is still way more than you pay I am sure. how much money did you contribute last year? dont give me a percentage - give me a dollar figure please.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 12 years ago

what part of graduated tax do you not understand?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

you didnt answer the question. how much taxes did you pay last year?

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 12 years ago

Someone who makes more money than me will pay more in taxes. And they should. Someone who makes a hell of lot more than me, will pay a hell of lot more in taxes. It is percentage based. Do you understand how percentage works?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

yes. and they aleady do pay a hell of a lot more than the average guy.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 12 years ago

Of course, that is how it works. If you get a raise, you pay more money in taxes than you did last year. When you become the boss, you pay more money in taxes than you did before. This is plain and simple so I do not understand your point. I don't advocate raising taxes for anyone. I say leave tax rates right where where they are- leave the bush rates and just get rid of capital gains. In other words, let all income be taxed as income. Period. That would be fair.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

Hmm - getting rid of cap gains tax rate. short term is 25% & long term (more than a year) is 15%. What do think the results will be?

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 12 years ago

The top 0.1% would have to pay their fair share, just like you and me.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

that wasn't the question. Pop Quiz : When GWB gave us the cap gains tax cut did revenue to the govt : A) go up B) go down C) stay the same?

If you want to talk fair share a flat tax is what's fair. Under a flat tax the rich still pay way more than you.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 12 years ago

I suppose all kinds of things are at play- I suspect it encouraged risky investments with high yields...

A flat tax is fair (all income)

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so you didn't answer the question but it seems you get the idea. excellent! - join the club - become a Libertarian !

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 12 years ago

I will do no such thing

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

oh - so you will remain brain dead. my sympathies.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 12 years ago

I will take death before I give up my independence and "join a club"

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 12 years ago

How many orgasms do you have?

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

Cost of living = Food , Clothing and Shelter !

[-] 2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so you believe you are entitled to those things? how so ? what leads you to believe you are entitled to anything but life liberty && the pursuit of happiness? you have a right to exist without being assaulted, molested or have your private property taken from you. That's it. making your way in the world is up to you. you have no claim on the output of others.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

last I looked you needed shelter and food to live in order to pursue happiness. I am starting to believe you are a child.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

I am a child looking for shelter within this thing we call human !

Is this a bad thing ?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

Are you talking about abortion? If so maybe you should ask your government to take better care of the most vulnerable in our society so they don't feel as though the best solution is abortion. And i am not a woman but if I were, I believe I'd want to abort, instead of giving my child away like a bag of potatoes. But i can't be sure if all women feel this way. so I really don't like to have an opinion when it comes to such matters.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

who should provide this food & shelter? where does it say -your food & shelter will be provided to to you - and then you can pursue happiness?

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

Us Humans !

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

So my productivity needs to provide you with food & shelter so you can pursue happiness? tell me were it says that?

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

[-] ropeknot 1 points 10 minutes ago

Us Humans !

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

Human kind !

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so - I work to take care of my famly - and I subsidize your laziness? I have no problem with safety nets for the truly needy. do you fall into that category?

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

Maybe ! Who knows!

And if so , would you deny me "cause I lost my job ?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

I provide you food stamps & unemployment benefits if you lose your job. what else do you want? and for how long?

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

We all supply the right to survive to all because we all have the right to survive as human beings as in all for one and one for all !

How long do I have a right to exist ?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

as long as you can take care of yourself. no one is preventing you from existing. it's up to you yourself to survive. why do you insist others take care of you? can you not fend for yourself?

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

If I can't , will you not help ?

P.S. I would have responded faster, but There is a min. 1 min interval between comments ! Sorry for the lapse !

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

It depends. first I'd like to see if you are living above your means, what kind of car you have, what kind of designer stuff you have what kind of vacations you have taken, what kind of education & training you have pursued & all other way's you have been responsible.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

like I said ;

Food , Clothing , Shelter !

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

You have to eat and be warm to live, right. God, you are thick.

[-] 2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

thick what ? I don't owe you a meal. meanwhile you are not even arguing safety nets because they are totally available. No one in the U.S. needs to be starving. Beyond that you are totally out of line! the constant comparison to who has what in society is totally juvenile. you have the right to pursue happiness - go ahead - no one is stopping you but yourself. Dont be such a loser!

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so - my labor should ensure your comfort?

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

Mine ensures yours when you're layed off !

[-] 2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

safety net fine - more than that - no. and that's what this movement is striving for- communism.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

I don't think it's more than that ! It's just that for all and no more ! Not communism !

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

well then you are for the wrong movement. OWS is a communist movement.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

Is communism for or against people ?

I am for people and to help where ever I can !

You make the word communism a bad thing !

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

communism is for total control of people. If you don't mind being completely controlled then be my guest. Just don't drag me and the other freedom loving Americans down with you. If you don't mind your standard of living being reduced to that of North Korea, China, Cuba, Former USSR, then maybe you should move to one of those delightful places. I'll even through in most of Europe.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

People doing people for the people is the only thing that matters.

Cost is what you're willing to give as per a present or gift !

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

no, our government should ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all her citizens. how old are you?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

I am 47 years old. how is the government not ensuring life liberty & the pursuit of happiness?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

they are. but if Republicans get their way they will no longer be able to. the rich want to eat every one's lunch and libertarian philosophy is their fork.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

how so ?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

by neutering the social safety net that ensures life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ring around the rosies... i am starting to get dizzy; i think this is the last communique i'll be sending you. good day, it was a pleasure

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

how has the social safety net been neutered specifically?

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

"Life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness"

That's right , but what about you are weak and I am here to defend you so you survive because you have the right to exist from God and all humankind ?

[-] 1 points by squarerootofzero (81) 12 years ago

Polishing brass on the Titanic.

[-] 1 points by AnonymousXIII (2) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Fare Share, in respect to the 99%rs and 1%rs and any, and all whom should be paying taxes, should not be done by dollar amount but by percentage (minus deductions and such)... so that being said if 30% (just for reference not actual) is the percentage to be paid by all individuals, corporations etc etc... then its 30%, even if your the bottom of the 99% or the top of 1%. However I dont believe in fare share... Where as if you earn substantially more, you can pay substantially more in percentage. If you earn substantially less you should pay less in percentage.

[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 12 years ago

I make 40,000 per year and pay 30% in tax.....You make 1 million, pay 20% and have more loopholes then a circus has rings to jump thru........Well I guess I explained unfair..oops

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

No - if I make 1 million I pay 36% federal income tax, 8.97 NY State tax and 5% city tax. Even if I paid 20% and you paid 30% I still pay more to the govt than you do. 20% of 1M = 200K 30% of 40K = 12K. if you make 40K and pay 30% federal income tax then you have a lousy accountant.

[-] 2 points by kayak69 (57) from West Sand Lake, NY 12 years ago

So you think it's OK for millionaires to pay a lower percentage than working class wage earners? You have a distorted view of "fair". And, how many people making 40K can afford an accountant? You're a great example of why this movement started in the first place.

[-] 2 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 12 years ago

I believe there should be a flat tax accross the board. Corporations should file a much simpler return. Income minus DIRECT operating expense, period. Corporations that are subsidized should no longer be. Corporations storing money overseas should be penalized the very same way a small business is penalized for filing a late sales tax return..... .01 +/- of the amt stored overseas per day.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

but the millionaire don't pay a lower percentage than than the working class. where did you get that info? I've been going to a professional accountant since I was 20 years old making 20K a year. So don't tell me you cant afford it. maybe you cant afford it precisely because you dont use a professional to shield you from the government ripping you off. try H&R Block for starters.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

When you add in sales taxes, property taxes, taxes called something else (SS, car registration, etc.) and then add in income taxes, the total percentage burden is higher for the working poor and middle classes than the millionaires in every study I've seen.

With your job, you may be more focused on income taxes, which are somewhat progressive.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so where is your backup to support your assertion? so now you want the 1% to pay more because the govt charges people to register their car? Take that up with the govt.

[-] 1 points by kayak69 (57) from West Sand Lake, NY 12 years ago

Millionaires pay a lower percentage because most of their money comes from investments, not income. Capital gains tax rates are lower than income tax rates. Source: IRS.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

Pop Quiz: After the Bush Cap Gains tax cuts did revenue A) Go Up B) Go Down or C) Stay the same ?

[-] 1 points by kayak69 (57) from West Sand Lake, NY 12 years ago

The Bush administration had claimed, based on the concept of the Laffer Curve, that the tax cuts actually paid for the themselves by generating enough extra revenue from additional economic growth to offset the lower taxation rates. However, income tax revenues in dollar terms did not regain their FY 2000 peak until 2006. Through the end of 2008, total federal tax revenues relative to GDP had yet to regain their 2000 peak. Source: Wikipedia researcher Maryana Pinchuk

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

A) cap gains revenue doubled. youve got to do better than Wiki as your source.

[-] 1 points by kayak69 (57) from West Sand Lake, NY 12 years ago

What is your source, Fox News?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

look it up @ the IRS

[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 12 years ago

We can debate numbers to the penny. And lets say I agree with your "accounting". There are way to many to name here loopholes for the 1 mil or more earners.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

yes - loopholes and all the top 1% pay 37 % of all federal income taxes collected. while the bottom 47% pay zero federal income tax.

[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 12 years ago

Did you say zero? as in nothing? Where did you find this at?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago
[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 12 years ago

From the fine print of the chart referenced: (3) The only tax analyzed here is the federal individual income tax, which is responsible for about 25 percent of the nation's taxes paid (at all levels of government). Federal income taxes are much more progressive than payroll taxes, which are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid (at all levels of government), and are more progressive than most state and local taxes (depending upon the economic assumption made about property taxes and corporate income taxes).

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

the payroll tax is social security & medicare which contributions cap out at 125K I think. the 1% pay the lions share of any state & local taxes as well. everybody pays the paroll tax because everybody gets SS & medicare when they turn the right age. which tax would you like to discuss that the rich pay less than the middle class & the poor?

[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 12 years ago

I believe cap is around 125, give or take, which would cap/stop at that point. Also, there are 10 times more loopholes, personal and corporate to discuss.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

that's my family. The whole world or country is not my family. I choose to have a family - it is not forced upon me. I can hold my family accountable. I cannot hold you accountable If you decide to shirk your responsibilities.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

Fair is the same rules apply to everybody. No re distributive "justice", no affirmative action, everybody pays the same rate. Justice is supposed to be blind.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

a fair share is enough to meet needs, not wants..

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

that's Karl Marx - so you are a communist I take it?

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

No, I am responsible for myself... I respect people's right to freedom.We have a beautiful planet to live on, yet it has come to this sorry state. That can't have been the plan, no matter who you think is responsible for us being here.. Govt has become a dangerous beast... It is right to rebel & try to think & behave like a human being instead of a corporate entity, intent on being one of the 'Haves', & not one of the 'Have Nots' . People need to be able to handle independence before we can actually have it.. 7 billion people is not one entity, it is 7 billion. Those 7 billion need to learn fast how to let each other get on without the 'hive mind'.. It is our nature now to look at what everyone else is doing (in case they need reporting)! instead of getting on with their own lives... We need to learn to mind our own business, because paranoia mentality from campaigns like 'If you see something, say something' is rife, & society won't change until the mentality does. I am nobody else s business unless I have caused harm, loss or injury to another person.. I have never harmed Govt, because I cannot, yet it likes me in it's courtroom, taking more money from me than I take from it. then wants to know why I haven't GOT a grand for it to fine me.... It's like the national debt..It cannot BE paid! & It cannot be justified 'just because' it is government.. It doesn't make it right. i like govt, but not bad govt..

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

each according to his needs is Marx. So why did you quote him if you are not a communist?

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

'Each according to his needs, met with a persons own effort being repaid in full measure of the work put in' I don't think is Marx. We grow food, we eat food. We make clothes, we wear clothes. It is everybody doing for themselves. the world does not belong to the state. the people are just stewards who should take care of it as it takes care of them. If we nurture something until it is eatable, then we can eat it. we have put the work in. The way it is now, it is the people putting all the work in, & the govt getting all the reward. We work hard, we deserve fresh healthy food & clean water. They don't give us that.

The State has not declared it represents God, so what is it? Why should we trust it if it does not claim to have authority from God? by whose authority does it exist? It cannot declare itself because the State is the Beast of revelation that gives power to the other beast, the U.N.. Watch, & see the 3rd beast destroy the Harlot that is false religion, that rides on its back. It will ban ALL religion next.. & introduce a new '1 God' system for all of us. That is the agenda of the Global elite... Marxism would probably be better than what is coming..

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

" 'Each according to his needs, met with a persons own effort being repaid in full measure of the work put in' " - and how is this not the arrangement between you and your employer? is anyone forcing you to work against your will for wages you have not voluntarily agreed to?

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

Why is it so important for me to have an employer? Who says you HAVE to work outside your own family? I could have an arrangement with myself to provide myself with the things I need.. I see no reason to earn things for an employer whom I have no obligation to support. I have never even seen the State, so I cannot owe it a living...

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

ok - more power to you excellent !

[-] 1 points by AnonymousXIII (2) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Quoting someone or believing in a portion of what someone else believes, does not make any individual, equalivant to what or where the origination of that belief came from.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

ok - you are entitled to your opinion

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

I wasn't aware that I did.. just looked it up, He maligns capitalism, but I agree with his view on exploitation, Exploitation is a matter of surplus labour — the amount of labour one performs beyond what one receives in goods... It seems from what I just read that the US is now a Socialist & Fascist state... That wasn't voted on, I'm sure. I am not familiar with Marxism at all, but on the face of it, it looks better for the people than both Socialism & fascism

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

can you put a figure on it please?

[-] 1 points by poopsmith (-3) 12 years ago

"a fair share is enough to meet needs, not wants". The fact that you are using an electronic devise (and don't give me the BS about you using library resources) you have exceeded your definition of "fair share". You do not "need" a smart phone, laptop, PC, tablet, or whatever it is you are using. you are greedy.

[-] 1 points by kbreit (2) 12 years ago

Greed is good. It is what drives our economy.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

Can people only think in terms of money? that is whats wrong with the world... Nothing is valuable unless it represents money.. May I just remind people that you can't eat it? When tshtf, you will be throwing your money on the street, & be begging for food, & people will say to you 'It wouldn't be fair for me to give you some of mine. Eat your money in the spirit of fairness!!'

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

money is a unit of measure of value. so you basically just want to be taken care of by everybody else is that it?

[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 12 years ago

A good majority of us went to college, paid (or are still paying) our college loans in the hopes of living comfortably. Only to find out its rigged by 1 percent of the population. I have worked for 25 years, and up until last month, have never collected a dime. Not unemployment, not food stamps, not anything. I have worked 2-3 jobs at times, owned my own business, and been a manager of a company......only to find it rigged for the 1 percent......the greedy owners and the spoiled rich kids that are taking over!!!!!

[-] 0 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

No wonder it is such a mess!! Whats wrong with people taking care of themselves? We shouldn't need a 'Nanny-State' to take care of us.. We have arms & legs!! Is it inconceivable that people grow food for themselves, go to markets for themselves to sell their wares, & buy the other things they need? Seriously, if you need to wonder who will take care of you, then YOU need the state to govern you....

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

is this directed at me? it sounds like you are agreeing with me. you're not making much sense.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

My mistake, I re-read yours, Apologies, I thought YOU wanted me to take care of everybody else... But the common response to the thought of getting rid of government, in my experience, is 'Who will take care of us?', especially the English. & not to generalize, I am English. In England, you just had to grunt at the Social Security lady, & she got you a form, helped you fill it in, & got you what you went for.. Thinking was not encouraged... I went to Ireland, where they don't rely on SS unless they REALLY have to because there is stigma attached to it, I grow food & herbs for medicine in a 6' by 6' box, I bake bread & make soups, knit, & make clothes because these skills have been all but lost. We haven't been allowed apprenticeships for around 20 years. people don't have the ability or skills to survive because everything is provided for us instead of them teaching & allowing us to provide ourselves with what we need., & when tshtf, Most won't know what to do..We can buy everything, but what if all the shops closed because of a recession..?It's getting more likely... teaching us trades that only benefit government is bad for people. It's no good me being able to represent the bank i worked for now that I don't work for them... I always worked, until 1 billion profit in the 3rd quarter of 2008 was not enough for BOA, & I walked out.. & realized they can take everything from us, so we need to be ready.. Apologies again,

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

no problem. I think we agree - dependency on govt is bad.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

apathy is the beast. live and let live is her venom. maybe if you did not just care for yourself, but cared for the state of the union, she would not be strangled by the whore of apathy. we all are responsible and those that continue to live and let live will find that mantra change into live and let die. stand for something greater than yourself and your profits. the hive mind is what creates peace as the greedy haves want to ride the beast of apathy to the grave. hope you are on the right side of historical change because change is the only constant. bad government is the product of bad citizens. you cannot disavow your part as I cant disavow my part. people get the gov't they deserve not the one they wish they had.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

I dont know - I look at all the collectivist societies & they all seem pretty miserable to me.

[-] 4 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

America was a collective, until greed, gluttony and apathy devalued her Great Society into a Reagan cesspool.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

That's why Johnson chose to not seek a second term - because his policies were so brilliant lol! Great society was a disaster. Please explain why Reagan was a "cesspool"

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

because he created a mind frame that you embrace. need i say more.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so Jimmy Carter is some hero of yours - Like Johnson lol!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

also Carter believed in God, therefore believed in something greater than himself, and did not get his itinerary from his Wife's psychic, like REagan. so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

that mind-frame experienced the greatest economic boom for 25 years since the 1920's why did Johnson not seek a second term ? How awesome was Jimmy Carter?

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Actually there's nothing particularly interesting about GDP since Reagan:

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/us-gdp-1900-2008

Except for the percentage of that growth that's gone to the very rich:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_US_Top_1%25_Income_Share_(1913-2008).svg

And how that relates to wage stagnation for everyone else:

http://www.epi.org/page/-/img/020510-wages.jpg

From: http://www.epi.org/publication/a_long_and_persistent_middle-class_squeeze/

You'll have to copy and paste the .svg link because of the paren.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

He put solar panels an the White House. AND SPOKE UP ABOUT THE American malaise. HOW AWESOME is that?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

Money is how all business is done. Its not not as bad as you people make it out to be. You can't eat money but you can use it to buy food to eat.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

in a time when the supply of food is in doubt, money will be worthless. Fiat currency is just debt. It is not backed by anything of value, like gold... (& you cannot pay debt with more debt), another story.. Food is being destroyed... Monasto are trying to monopolize the entire industry with GM foods, but the food is proving to be dangerous to people. Extreme Weather is also destroying crops. There is a global famine coming. when that happens, could you convince 'Fred the farmer' to swap your bits of paper for food? If he doesn't agree it is as valuable as the food he can eat, then you won't be able to buy any. Govt will provide their GM poison for you though, because it is a 'privilege, not a right' (their words, not mine)to have healthy food.. What Govt has been doing is taking all the money out of the system. They are rich, we are poor. But they will declare very soon that the money is worth nothing, & it is their money. They will pilfer bank accounts with savings, then abandon us with no clue how to cope without money..

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

doomsday hahaha! just worry about getting a job. the food supply will take care of itself.

[-] 1 points by GlobalShift (10) 12 years ago

I hate to burst your bubble cookie but I work with farmers on a daily basis and they are in fact seeing mass die-offs of GMO crops as well as infertility in livestock fed GMOs.

You keep claiming that others on this thread are naive, ignorant or living in a fantasy realm but boy are you one uninformed individual.

[-] 2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

ok - well - in the mean time - my supermarket is teaming with product.. Sorry to hear about your misfortune.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

I don't need a job. Govt works for me, not the other way around. My only job is to provide for my family, I pay rent to govt with govt money, pay for Govt electricity with their money, & food bills with their money. It is meant to be their job to take care of us all, why should we slave for them AND pay for the privilege? I don't GET anything of value off them, I just keep putting their money back into their system to balance the books. I never take more than I need. I could screw them every day for a month, but my thinking is, if I take from them other than to pay THEIR bills, the more I am feeding the Beast & creating more debt, so i don't. I use their money out of necessity, not want. I have the right to shelter, food & warmth. They are basic needs, & that is all i take. If people think I am a freeloader, so be it, but i am not stupid enough to work like a dog to pay taxes, higher rent, Social insurance that doesn't pay because I work, Medical insurance for myself & kids, but if it was needed, I would have to find the money first, then be reimbursed for a much lesser amount.. a pension that was worth a quarter of what I paid into it, & would be worth nothing by the time i came to collect it if it hadn't been pilfered... I save them debt by not taking their vaccines, so its win/win.... people work to earn the debt of the government. Nothing more.. I don't owe it, it doesn't owe me,,, I take only to give back..

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

You can't back money by gold unless everyone else backs it with gold. Otherwise we could not trade with anyone.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

the Govt stole the gold that was found by the people, & claimed all resources, so they should be paying all the bills. That was a provision of them taking the gold under FDR.... Govt get people to take the resources from the land, & what they make from that belongs to the people, not to the govt. They are stripping the Earth for corporate greed, making legal entities wealthy, & lawful entities poor & dependant on it for whatever it needs. The work of the people is what gets Govt ANYTHING, so it is right that the Govt take care of all bills, instead of giving us a share of their debt, to pay their debts, ie, fiat currency... I get money from Gov. I pay their rent, their electricity bill, their food bill with it, so I don't actually get anything of value from the State I am not entitled to,, food, warmth & shelter. I just collect their debt, & give it back to them. it created the illusion that they are giving me something... They are not. We can't take resources from the land without being accused of stealing from the State. We cannot steal from the State, because the State by itself cannot own anything. Money is only valuable if 2 people agree it is... govt trades in birth certificates, not money, because the money is debt.. People are the collateral.. We think WE are corporations & have to trade as such... humans don't if they directly swap with people they know in their society. I don't KNOW 7 billion people.. My society could take care of itself by barter & exchange because we are, (up to now, anyway,) still allowed to grow food. Everything the Govt has, has been stolen from under the rightful tenants of the land.. Without currency & State employment, people would become self-sufficient. Govt would lose control & would not be needed. Hence Agenda 21.. Money is not wealth, it is debt.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 12 years ago

I need a couch in order to watch TV comfortably even though I don't need TV to live. So what are our human "needs". Are they all the same? How do we measure that? How do we ensure peoples needs can be met if we're only trying to cover their needs? If peoples wants are being met, are their needs not? Is it then better to have our needs or wants met?

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

warmth, food & water, & shelter are needs. A couch is a comfort. We cannot live without our needs being met. We might not be satisfied, but we will live... We won't die because we don't have a couch. We should consider everything else a bonus.. The world system depends on our materialism. If we got a proper perspective, where our wants are not classified as needs, the system would fail. We have become spoiled & think we HAVE to have... We don't, we are conditioned to just want more than our needs require..

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 12 years ago

Okay. Have fun out in the wilderness Chris McCandless while I eat Wendy's while watching Glee on Netflix.

Even though I don't need these things, they make my life more comfortable. The culture of excess makes goods cheap. Cheap goods raise the standard of living. This might not live up to your morals but at least I won't die of starvation, boredom, the cold or being eaten by a mountain lion because I live in an apartment with a TV in a city that has Wendy's.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

In the city with police thug terrorists... You made a statement. My morals are not reflected by the answer to that question. It wasn't opinion. It was fact.

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 12 years ago

I don't live in a city with terrorist police officers. Your opinion was presented as fact.

Fair is subjective. That's a fact. Why would I let you tell me what is fair and why you you let me tell you?

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 12 years ago

facts are undeniable. opinion is open to debate. My opinion did not come into what I said. You have not denied anything I said, so what's your argument?. Fair is not subjective. Fair is Fair! Fair is if there is enough for everybody, & everybody HAS some. Is it 'fair' for you to have a sofa when people are starving to death? No, it is a bonus to you, it is more than you NEED. I didn't decide what is fair. It has been defined by generations of people being deprived of the basic necessities of life. Does me telling you what's fair make you feel greedy or something? Does it prick your conscience that you have an abundance & others have nothing? Or do you just think 'It's fair for ME'? so f* everyone else? Then you can't understand the meaning behind fair. If that is NOT the case, you will agree on the definition of fair. Maybe you should just be grateful!?!?!

'Fair is the difference between right & wrong'..... Do you have Peace officers where you live, or do you have State security Guards posing as police? Policy enforcers are not police. If police officers were not behaving in terrorist manners, this site would not need to be here..

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Teamster (102) 12 years ago

If someone has money and starts a business that ends up making billions that is great but I bet he didn't sweat as much as the guy making the product for him. Or go home with back pains like the laborers. So stop with the hard work talk. Fair share is paying the people who work for you a decent wage.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

define "decent"

[-] 1 points by Teamster (102) 12 years ago

That depends on how much the company makes. If the company profits $6 billion a year and lay people off that is not fair.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

life isn't fair. if you dont like your wages go find another job or become more valuable. it has nothing to do with how much the company makes. It has to do with how many people can do what you do. ever wonder why the lowest paid jobs are the easiest to perform? minimum wage jobs are entry level. meant for kids in high school.

[-] 2 points by Teamster (102) 12 years ago

You have not really worked at a real job yet have you? I only see the guys with no shame who kiss ass all day and blame and bad mouth the other workers move up. The hard workers they keep doing the hard work. Why move up the guy who gets the most done physically. Even if he is smart and can do the job.

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

I've worked as a carpenter, bartender, assistant recording engineer, retail clerk, newspaper boy, car salesman & banker. I paid for college in cash from working nights. so stop your whining. if you dont make the money you desire - figure out how. get some additional training more skills = more pay.

[-] 2 points by Teamster (102) 12 years ago

Not found anything you are good at yet? What do you do now?

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

I know that I now make a good living without relying on forced subsidies. I work at a Bank in client service. what do you do ?

[-] 2 points by Teamster (102) 12 years ago

I cut grass, shovel snow, remove leaves and maintain parks. So it seems both of us have jobs anyone can do. If you owned a business and made billion wouldn't it make you feel good to give people good paying jobs and good lives. I wish god would of blessed me with that so I could give people jobs. And I am not saying these people should not be rich and have 10 cars or 10 houses. But if you already own everything you want and still have money to waste don't lay people off just to make more money. You would not feel bad laying someone off with a new house and a baby? Or an older man of 58 who put in 27 years of work for you just cause he is slower then a 20 year old that will work cheaper? Where is your heart?

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

that's just not how it works. God bless you & good luck

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

I love the whole spiel about "minimum wage jobs are entry level meant for kids in high school" crap that people like to throw out as if there's an ounce of truth behind it.

According to the Department of Labor (unless you are somehow more informed of the facts than they are) 3/4 of low wage workers are adults - 20 years and older.

These "low skill jobs" keep this country running. Most of the world would never know if the corporate big wigs didn't show up for work. A lot of people would notice if the stores didn't open for business. I think FDR put it best:

"Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, ...tell you...that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry."

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

yea - if 3/4 of minimum wage jobs are filled by adults - that's a problem. what skills & training do they have where they are working minimum wage jobs? That doesn't mean oh - well - these workers have no skills, traing, education - so lets just artificially raise their wages instead of asking them to get skills to fill higher skilled jobs. pleasssse!

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Over 36% have completed High School or GED. 30% have atleast some college training, almost 10% have above college training. Try it again, Sam.

It's a problem that so many adults hold low wage jobs? I say it again - these jobs keep the world running. The idea that only high school students hold them is a myth, and always has been. Most of these jobs existed before high schools. You want to condemn these people, yet you rely on them every single day.

Was the floor at your work mopped yesterday? Did you buy a coffee? How about a shirt? Milk? Vegetables? Meat? Have a parent or child in any kind of care facility for any period of time? Without these workers you would sit in squalor and could not even supply for yourself because you wouldn't know how.

Sounds like jobs that deserves a wage that provides the basics of life to me.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

college training? in what field of study? The unemployment rate for college grads is 4.3% look it up here is the link:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/12/01/143016866/unemployment-falls-to-8-6-percent

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Last I checked, to be a "low wage worker" you had to earn a wage. Hence, you'd have to have a job, not be unemployed. But, by all means, allow us to add in the unemployment numbers.

So that means 4% of college graduates are unemployed, on top of nearly 10% being underemployed. Some college, including associate degrees according to this site, are over 7% unemployed, and 30% underemployed.

It's also worthy to note the other statistics - 8.8% High School Graduates or GED, 13.2% lack a high school diploma. While the largest "sector" - as they divide it - would be under a high school diploma, this segment is smaller than any combination of the other two sectors combined, let alone the three together.

Thank-you for further discrediting your case.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

how does whatever you just said discredit my case? The higher the education the lower the unemployment figure.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Because the majority of unemployed and underemployed are not uneducated. The biggest majority is High School to Associate Degree. The middle ground. Add in college graduates, and the less educated become the minority.

When you go back to the original statistics and say, alright 1/4 of low wage workers are high school students, then you have to wonder how much of that percentage counts towards the adult section of the work force.

The bottom line is that in an ideal world higher education would be readily available to those with the drive to pursue it, but we don't live in an ideal world. If the wages for these jobs aren't even providing enough for food and housing, where do you think they're going to get the money for schooling?

Even ignoring all that, the final point is this - there are not enough of your high school students to supply the work force for these jobs. Are stores open only from 5pm to 10pm? When do you need someone to watch your kids? Only after 3pm? These work forces require adults, not teenagers. And if that's the need, then there's no excuse to pay them less than it takes to survive.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

you just refuted a hard statistic from the bureau of labor statistics hahaha! 4 year college degree = 4.3% unemployed - No High School diploma 13.2%

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Your inability to answer the tougher questions I put to you and purposeful avoidance of them is growing boring. Since you clearly can't read or do math, I pointedly said this:

The biggest majority is High School to Associate Degree. The middle ground. Add in college graduates, and the less educated become the minority.

8.8% (High School) + 7% (Some College - Associate Degree) = 15.8%, Which last I checked:

15.8% > 13.2%

And did they measure how much of that 13.2% were high school students with jobs? Split it between Adults with less than high school, and teenagers with jobs? Hm...wonder what the division would look like, if you excluded high school students.

Take away the pretty words from your argument, and everything you've said amounts to this:

Even though these jobs require a dedicated adult workforce, and without these jobs neither I or anyone who works in the higher paying jobs would be able to have the basics of survival, they deserve to starve and go homeless.

Yah...come to think of it, I have nothing more to say to you.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

ha - that's fine because the gobblygook you've been saying makes no sense anyway. Go ask the Bureau of Labor Statistics @ BLS.gov and ask them. This is why your life is a mess - you over complicate things. of all the people filing for unemployment benefits. 4.4% are college grads. Thats it.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

wages need to keep pace with inflation otherwise that is tantamount to wage decreases, i assume you can find the data charts for that. the question about college grad unemployment rates tells me you assume the movement is only made of unemployed persons, you could not be more incorrect if that is the case.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Thank-you. As for the statistics, the worth of minimum wage has fallen 23% in the last 30 years. Since the focus is a lot on minimum wage rather than low wage, it's harder to find the statistics for that. But the rise of income inequality gives argument enough that the numbers would not be pretty either.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

Just going by the data in the NPR article. The same data is available @ the Bureau of Labor Statistics or bls.gov. If you want to talk about inflation - maybe you should tell The Federal Reserve Chairman to stop printing money out of thin air.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

that doesn't validate your accusation that this protest is looking for a handout. and yes, i support the NEED act.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

o.k.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

A fair share is enough that when a family member works forty hours, s/he is able to put food an the table, pay the utilities, have health insurance, school supplies for their children and save enough for retirement, while the spouse is able to stay home and do the house work.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

i am not stupid enough to have children in a greedy society. maybe that is why we have to import our population growth.

http://www.citicommons.com/

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

yes

[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 12 years ago

can u say welfare state? no way!

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

you are funny, what do you think it is when a minimum wage worker has to subsidies his living with foodstamps, or when a financial industry has to be bailed out. think hard retard. and i'd rather have a job that paid me a fair wage than a subsidized wage. anyway, middle america pays. don't trip too hard on that talking point you regurgitate out without thinking. also, if I get cancer tomorrow, guess who pays?

[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 12 years ago

I can never understand the commercials to feed the children overseas....I watch and wonder....why dont these poor people just stop having kids? I mean, I know they know they cant possibly feed them, everyone else is starving.....but yet they continue to have kids....not just one or two, like the average in America...they have like 4 or 5? And I still think,,,why do they keep having kids? Get the point smart ass?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

probably because equal poverty breeds happy people. no?

[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 12 years ago

or they dont know how to use birth control properly? LOL

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

or they fuck to keep warm? or they need more children to work the fields. or life is not as complicated there as it is here. or they are happy and we are not. stop thinking ethnocentrically and thing geocentrically, globally. I wont procreate here because I don't believe in creating widget makers.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so what society extracts from my labor is determined by how many children everyone else decides to have?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

no, but family ten should be taxed more or work harder or smarter. exorbitantly high taxes are a deterrent for bad behavior. even republicans know that.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

If you want to have ten children, then maybe you should work harder and get a better degree so you can climb the ladder of success. My whole rant is hypothetical, considering not enough people vote to make the change I envision.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

thank you, I learned a new acronym.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 12 years ago

Oh no man. A fair share is whatever you can gather for yourself based upon your own hard work. If you don't make enough based upon your own hard work then work harder. And put your spouse to work too. If you can't afford your internet get rid of it. cell phone, get rid of it. Food, shelter, clothing, electricity. Everything else is discretionary.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

then keep on watching your nation fall into the abyss of mediocrity, as those who are smarter than you, more loyal than you, more willing to achieve excellence, just watch their nation disintegrate and believe it is for the greater good of the world.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 12 years ago

Well buddy, everybody learns to live within their means whether they want it that way or not. Do nothing, earn nothing. Do something, earn something.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

I earn enough and am happy at the bottom rung. Can everyone else say that about themselves?

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

I think that's great to be content without being obsessed with a material lifestyle. Although, I think that as a hard working citizen, you should be entitled to the Constitutional rights that are being stripped away from all of us.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

Rights of man are rights i have never lost. Unless I'm in jail, I'm free. I have done my cost/benefit analysis and am free and content.

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

Just keep in mind that your rights are shrinking every day and prisons are becoming big business. When it's profitable to put non-criminals in jail, we all have reason for concern.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

i keep that in mind, daily, and am doing my part to try and make a once rational nation see the error of unadulterated greed. if I did not care, why would I express myself?

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

Glad to hear that. That's all we can do is try and do our part. I hope it can still make a difference.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

God grant me the serenity to except the things I can not change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

I can't change the world; I can only change minds

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

Which rights are being stripped away?

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

Constitutional rights. Every time new legislation is passed, we are losing some fraction of our rights. Not that our Constitution holds much weight anymore. I just had hoped it would.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

True. Lawmakers walk and spit on the constitution every time they meet. And I agree, every day congress is in session, we lose a little more of our freedom. A little more of our labor is stolen every time a tax is implemented. And every person on the dole is kept on the dole to secure that vote in the next election.

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

Exactly. That's why no matter what method we citizens seek to address the problem, we need to address it now.

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

No matter what you do? What happens when no one will consume the good or service you produce with that high of costs of production? People won't pay $100 to get their lawn cut or $300 for a restaurant dinner. So then government absorbs them and we have 10s of millions more government employees wandering around creating nothing? Why would producers stick around to pay the taxes needed to support that? Why wouldn't people do even less knowing that no matter what, they have a base line standard of living funded by someone else?

See, you always run into a problem when you want to take only to give. What you get, you need to earn. There's no sustainable way around it.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

then keep on watching your nation fall into the abyss of mediocrity, as those who are smarter than you, more loyal than you, more willing to achieve excellence, just watch their nation disintegrate and believe it is for the greater good of the world.

[-] -1 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 12 years ago

It might just be the only way to prove to the idiots that think all you need to do is tax the rich more.

[-] -1 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

The government needs to get out of the way, in order for productivity to increase. Unions need to get out of the way as well, as the usefulness of them has long past. Obama needs to allow more drilling and the Canadian pipeline should be allowed to go forward. Obama has crushed us. He needs to get his boot off our throats.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

no, you and the multitude need to take government more seriously. stop voting for rich people and they will no longer be able to help rich people eat your lunch.

[-] -1 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

If you aren't rich, you don't run for office. That is unless you can somehow get your message out, without money.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

I don't need to.I am happy on the bottom rung. can middle class america say the same? and maybe your logic is the flaw in our system. think outside the box, baby.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

and how much is that?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

Right off hand, i'd say no more than 19 dollars an hour but even that may be a little too high. I only say that because if you count constant dollars, the working class has not had a raise in over fifty years.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so if the government raised the minimum wage from $7.25 to $20.00 the occupiers would be happy & go home? how about $19.00 ?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

Well, i can't speak for them but it would be enough for me to contemplate having children, and contributing 100% to the American way. I'd probably even become a cheerleader for it.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so let me understand you - you'd like the minimum wage to be what ever you think you need so you can do the things you want to do in life ?

[-] 4 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

That is a loaded weapon, but i'll bite. I think the minimum wage should be enough where a forty hour a week job gives me the dignity to look my child in the eye and say we live in the greatest nation in the world. A job that does not make me feel as though I'm on a hamster wheel always being expected to sacrifice a little more, run a little faster, so my superiors can buy their third house, second yacht, and vacations where ever they please. So yes, I believe the minimum wage should be a dignified wage.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so - put a number on it

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

i did. refer to you previous comments. I am not an economist; I am a working class slob with Ideas better than most.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

sorry - so 20 bucks an hr will make you happy? so what kind of work do you want to do to earn that 20 bucks an hour?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

If you would read my link, you'd see that I am pontificating to make a nation that is more fair. If twenty dollars is what it takes to ensure proper care for forty hours a week worked then so be it. I'd rather make a fair wage than make the current wage and have to leach free health care and food stamps to survive. http://www.citicommons.com/

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so you don't want to feel like a leech but isn't artificially raising wages the same thing in a different form? So you just want to feel good about yourself by not having to apply for food stamps. you want the subsidy to be masked so you can keep your dignity. the whole point of charity os to make it a little uncomfortable to motivate you to work harder, improve your skills become self sufficient so you don't have to be dependent on others labor

[-] 1 points by GlobalShift (10) 12 years ago

So Aries, given that the price of just about everything has gone up, yet wages have remained basically the same. What is your solution? How will people afford the things they need for their own - and their families - survival when the cost of food exceeds the amount they make from their jobs?

I lob the ball into your court. I want to hear YOUR solution.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

no - you have to compete for the jobs. and the ones who dont make the cut the first time need to keep trying. and through attrition and job movement - if they are decent - they will get something eventually. what planet are you on ? what fantasy island are you on that provides a perfect position for everyone who wants it?

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

you need to up your skill level and do a different job. my dad supported a family of three as a bank teller in 1965. do you think that is possible today? you cant expect to stay stagnant in your worth as the world moves forward. I suppose if you expect everything to be frozen in time that is possible but the world just doesn't work that way

[-] 1 points by GlobalShift (10) 12 years ago

And you believe there are higher level positions out there for everyone that desires a higher rate of pay? Please post a link to your sources if so. Thank you.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

you are so simple my friend. I want every one who grew up in my class to feel good about themselves without having to scurry up a ladder like a jack ass with a carrot tied to his head.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so artificially raising your wages will make you feel better? what kind of work do you want to do to earn this 20.00 minimum wage?

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Wages are artificial.

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

There's more dignity in earning your own then in cashing a government mandated check. It's amazing how many of you no longer see it that way.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so you want to artificially subsidize your wages so you can keep your dignity. it's the same thing only masked in wages instead of direct assistance. If that's the case - what incentive is there for anyone to work harder? I'll take the 20.00 minimum wage job @ mcdonalds.

[-] 2 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

No, I don't want to do either. I was pointing out that price controls on wages are the same thing as general assistance. The price fixed wage the loons suggest would result in either mass unemployment (and a government check) or government doing the hiring for idiotic jobs (and a government check).

Dignity comes from earning things, not government mandated handouts, direct or indirect.

I think we agree.

[-] -1 points by trob888 (25) 12 years ago

Increasing the minimum wage would only lead to LESS jobs. It's amazing how many of these idiots think increasing the minimum wage is a good thing.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

It's amazing how people who have no idea about what it's like to work for minimum wage have so much to say about it.

You're information is based on two things - A) The company would have to cut workers to raise pay. because B) The company's are paying their workers the most they can without huge negative impacts on profit.

Both are false.

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 12 years ago

Rich people should pay a higher % of their incomes. That's only fair. They don't have the same problems as the rest of us because they have enough money. No home foreclosures, no problem to bring food to the table, no worries about getting a gigantic medical bill or an education that would allow our children to get better living conditions. In summary, they should pay more than the rest of us because they have much more money.

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

how much more should they pay? don't they already pay more than the rest of us ? when you say "our children" who's children are you referring to?

[-] 2 points by 99time (92) 12 years ago

The top one percent pay LOWER effective tax rates than the top 50 percent. This means they pay a lower overall percentage. This is well documented. Here is an example article.

Tax Rate for Richest 400 Taxpayers Plummeted in Recent Decades, Even as Their Pre-Tax Incomes Skyrocketed http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3090

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

you didn't answer the question -so - how much more should they pay? and who's children are you referring to ?

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 12 years ago

Don't you see the news? Obama just said, yes, the president that the millionaires can pay as low as 1% in taxes. How much are you paying buddy? When I say our children, I mean the children of the 99%. We have terrible social inequality here and terrible social mobility.

How much should they pay? As much as they can. That should be decided by the the needs of the budget. Don't ask me for a number, I'm not in power to give a specific number.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

so you believe that ? because he said it hahaha! No wonder he got elected ! Geezzz! do your own homework for christ sake - holy cow! that explains everything lol!

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 12 years ago

ok like Im going to believe an anonymous guy over the president buddy troll harder

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

hahahaha! ok - no wonder we are screwed up. Any smooth talking guy in front of a microphone can tell you anything hahaha! No wonder Hitler was able to get so far because of people like you sheeple.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

you got trust issues. you know those who can't trust others are just projecting. You do know that the President is not a king and is not the decider. He can only implement the laws passed to him by Congress.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

yea - he can also lie to your face & you swallow it because you are too lazy to do your own homework. Sheeple. idol worship

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

well, I take everyone at their word until they do something that shows their word is full of lies. what research should I do to make me toe your line?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

hahaha! and obama hasnt lied to you yet? for starters - how about if we pass the stimulus bill unemployment wont go above 8% ? That's a good one hahaha! Please stop! my ribs hurt from laughing so much hahaha!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

ha ha ha, so we are electing prophets now.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

it seems so after the last one lol!

[-] -3 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 12 years ago

Rich people should pay the SAME % as the rest of us, in fact, maybe we should pay them a little extra to share their knowledge with us.

[-] 2 points by sato (148) 12 years ago

Your logic is flawed. Why should we pay them since they have more than enough money to live a comfortable life?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 12 years ago

Then they would probably not bothering to share their knowledge on how they got rich.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

Why would you even request such a thing without context? It's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

because our president used the term fair share about 199 times in a speech yesterday

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23769) 12 years ago

Well, a "fair share" in terms of wages would be one that people can actually live on and afford basic necessities such as housing, food, healthcare, transportation, clothing and education, a "living wage."

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

and how much is that?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23769) 12 years ago

A lot more than what people are being paid right now!

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

put a number on it

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23769) 12 years ago

I know you want to simplify this in order to debunk it, but the fact of the matter is, it is very complex. It would require calculations on cost of living across many geographic areas.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

it's not complex at all - it's called supply & demand.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23769) 12 years ago

In laissez-faire capitalism it is supply and demand. In a government looking out for what is best for it's citizens it is complicated.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

that is not the governments role. The governments role is to uphold the constitution period.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23769) 12 years ago

"promote the general Welfare" is mentioned in the first sentence of the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

yes - and if the general welfare phrase meant every whim of politicians there would be no need for the rest of the document. everyone's definition of "general welfare is different.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23769) 12 years ago

I see "general welfare" as meaning what is best for the most citizens. This would mean that what is best for the 1% is in contradiction to the constitution.

[-] 2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

yea - and whats best for most citizens is to not demonize the very people you expect to invest and create jobs for you. If I where a 1% I'd be sitting on my money right now or investing where people appreciate my capital.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23769) 12 years ago

Demonized? For the past ten years the government has been controlled by them. The 1% are richer than they have ever been yet there are no jobs. Sad, and obviously not in the interest of the general welfare of the American people.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

why do you care how rich the 1% are? for 25 years preceding the crash we had a great economic boom. worry about making money yourself instead of worrying about what other people have. Dont covet thy neighbors stuff!

[-] 1 points by GlobalShift (10) 12 years ago

I care very little about how rich the 1% are. What I do care about is when corporations and banks start buying politicians and governments to promote their own agendas - which by the way concerns itself very much so with how rich YOU are and how much THEY covet what YOU have. I care that the voices of the people are silenced by the sound of coin dropping into a purse. I care that the rights of the many are quickly being sacrificed for the benefit of the few.

Now, this is all a game to you. I know for you it's all about proving how lazy and ignorant the people of this movement are. It all fun and blazing pistols and smarmy chuckles for you. That's good. Keep yourself in that place. It's exactly what the corporations and the "too big too fail" banks want you to do.

Some of us chose to fight it. You can call them whatever you like but they are the ones out there every day - and I'm not just talking about the protestors in NY or the US - facing down the jeers of the naysayers, pepper spray, mass arrest, beatings and guns. Fighting to ensure that some day there will be a world left for their children and grandchildren and their children's grand children because if the corporations continue as they have...this world will be a wasteland. They are the brave ones and worthy of respect.

So keep asking your silly little questions. Keep looking down your nose in contempt. Chuckle as you bow down to your own ego. We'll be over there fighting for your rights.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23769) 12 years ago

I don't care how rich the 1% are. I care about how poor 15% of Americans are. There should never be a cap on how much wealth a person can accumulate but there should be a bottom pay that is a living wage. I'm honestly curious. If you are not in the 1% yourself, why do you defend their interests?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

Not bailing out zombie banks and toxic debt with tax payer money while those ceo's who bamkruptef their companies continue to get bonuses with with tax payer momey not FAIR share

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by technoviking (484) 12 years ago

"fair share": give more to me and less to everyone else

[-] 0 points by TheMaster (63) 12 years ago

It's a phrase that promotes class warfare, the quintessential democrat strategy.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

Fair share is a subjective, ambiguous term. It is an amount to be determined. It is an amount decided by greedy persons that feel they have a right to people's money, to confiscate, to pilfer, to take away, someone's labor. It is theft. Beware of anyone who wants a "fair share".

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

or ungreedy people feel they should not contribute to a greedy society.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

I quit my national defense job

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

justice is oppression

[-] 0 points by ClearView (73) 12 years ago

Try the Economic Bill of Rights proposed by FDR: http://www.fdrheritage.org/bill_of_rights.htm

[-] 2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

yea - he proposed 100% tax on earnings above $100,000.00 do you agree with that?

[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 12 years ago

Where do you see that?

[-] -1 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

Fair share is whatever greedy people want it to be. It is never enough. Obama started it to incite class warfare. Obama wants us all at each others throats. Chaos. Hate the rich. Make them pay. Take it by force. Why? To pay down the deficit he claimed to elementary school children this week. The debt will only rise because collapse is what Obama wants. Then utopia will rise from the ashes of the greedy rich. Anyone who believes our national debt will be solved by raising taxes is mentally retarded. Cut the budget by 50% across the board, yes, that is what it will take to get this hell bound train derailed.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

basically - you are a loser.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

Actually I am not a loser. You are an ignorant individual that thinks our broke government is the rich people's fault. Last I checked our government is the group passing all kinds of bullshit and not funding any of it, except by racking up more debt from foreign investors that our children and grandchildren will get to pay back. I would say all of this spending is about as selfish and narcissistic as it gets. Give me give me, more more. What a disgrace.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

nah - I still think you are a loser. stop worrying about other peopls stuff & start worrying about yourself.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

I see you are from Nutley. That explains everything.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

thats funny - because i am not from Nutley lol!

[-] 1 points by Ludog5678 (28) 12 years ago

troll/10

[-] -3 points by Wealthy (20) 12 years ago

Fair share is you pay and I don't. I've been taught since childhood that I am special and deserve everything I want and if it's hard for me to get it then it is your responsibility to provide it for me.

You have so much and I have so little, if you provide for me then we both will have some, isn't that fairer than you having so much and me having so little?

The fact that I want you to provide for me is not greedy, the fact you don't want to provide for me is greedy. I simply don't care that you are smarter and work harder than I do, I do hate you for it but I don't care as long as I can get you to provide for me, who's smarter then. :)

[+] -4 points by LiberalateUS (-3) 12 years ago

FARE SHARE is we get what the Fukk we want and YOU shut the Fuk up about it.

THAT is OUR MOVEMENT

so Shut the FUK UP and GIVE US money

we are the 99% and we WANT what you HAVE

FUCK YOU

[-] -2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

hahaha! good luck hahaha! how about I take what I have and invest it overseas where the people will appreciate it. OWS = spoiled brats

[-] 0 points by LiberalateUS (-3) 12 years ago

Im NOT a spoiled Brat! I gotz my skoolership cauze I be an American Suppressed! by whiteys!

I will Gruducate and I WILL run for Office cause I wanna Rulle your AZZ and tell you what to do cause us Liberalz KNOW whats BEST for your DUMB AZZEZ who built this shit!

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

good luck to you - it sounds like you will need it lol!