Forum Post: Right wing cry babies. Shut the hell up and raise those god damn taxes on filthy rich pigs. Stop being a bunch of god damn cry babies when it comes to taxes. Do that, and I for one, will stop ripping on you for it. I already agree more with your party whe
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 11:31 a.m. EST by ModestCapitalist
(2342)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Right wing cry babies. Shut the hell up and raise those god damn taxes on filthy rich pigs. Stop being a bunch of god damn cry babies when it comes to taxes. Do that, and I for one, will stop ripping on you for it. I already agree more with your party when it comes to crime, guns, and abortion. But you're fucking wacked in the head when it comes to tax reform. You won't even close corporate loopholes unless it's part of an overall plan to lower taxes on the rich.
So god damn it. Shut the fuck up, quit throwing a bloody cry-baby fit over taxes, and raise them on those making over $250,000 per year. Then, if and when things improve for all 5 quintiles (income vs actual cost of living ratio), we can talk about a new tax structure. But until then, just shut the fuck up and raise those god damn taxes on the rich. Just god damn fucking do it you sold out bloodsucking corporate rich pig suck-ups. Just do it.
No? THATS WHAT I THOUGHT.
God damn rotten sell-out bastards.
The rest of you:
Don't believe any of these mega-rich pigs who are suddenly saying that they wouldn't mind paying more taxes. It's a lie. Nothing but PR crap. They lobbied for massive tax breaks. They hire tax attorneys to exploit every loophole. Their recent statements are only intended to reduce public backlash. After all, they could have paid more in taxes voluntarily if they weren't such greedy pigs. THEY DIDN'T. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM. So don't fall for their rotten PR crap. IT'S A LIE.
Another thing: Those of you with an open mind, be sure to read every comment on this page with no regard for position. The critics of OWS have been trying to 'vote up' their own comments and 'vote down' any supporting OWS. It's an obvious strategy to prevent you from reading the ugly truth. Especially those comments which address the outrageous corporate loopholes or the obscene concentration of wealth. They don't want you to read any of them. Be sure to scroll carefully and check out the entire page.
dude u sound like the cry baby
dork
Next.
For tax year 2009 (per the National Taxpayers Union):
Top 1% 36.73% of all income taxes
Top 5% 58.66% of all income taxes
Top 10% 70.47% of all income taxes
Top 25% 87.30% of all income taxes
Top 50% 97.75% of all income taxes
Bottom 50% 2.25% of all income taxes
I think the top 10% is paying quite enough. THEY should be the one's protesting.
What a lying argument this has been. Yes, the statistics quoted are correct, but it is a classic lie wrapped in a half truth. Yes, the top 1% pay 36.73% (Actually, that is LESS than I give them credit for in my own writing.) However, they make 55% of all the income in the country. Therefore, if they were paying the same rate as everyone else, they SHOULD be paying 55% of all the income taxes.
When the full truth is shown, your own statistics reveal just how MUCH the rich are underpaying. (Especially that top 1%.) What your numbers really show is that the to top1% is paying about 20% less in taxes as a percentage of their income than the middle class. While they have higher tax rates (as window dressing to create the appearance that they are paying more than anyone), they also have numerous tax deductions and credits that get their actual tax payment as a percentage of their income LOWER than the middle class. Thus, they make 55% of ALL income in the U.S. but pay only 36.73% of all income taxes. What a huge inequity.
(For further argument regarding the other percentiles you mentions, see the following article I posted recently on my blog to put an end to this lying half-truth: http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/bushwhacked-by-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-the-rich )
Fact is, we have been Bushwacked by the Bush Tax Cuts. They need to be eliminated just to get the wealthy back to paying an equal portion of their income in taxes to what the middle class pay.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
Bullshit. Look at the income spread. The richest one percent reap 21% of all private income. They hold 40% of all private wealth. Much of which is SUBSIDIZED from the same revenue.
When you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes and fees, the middle class actually pay about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the rich. So stop being so shallow. Look at all angles of the equation. Otherwise, go play.
When you're finished in the sandbox, read this:
Corporate profits have been partially subsidized with federal, state, and local revenue. This benefit has been hoarded at the top. Business managers make up the largest group of one percent club pigs. Plus 40% of the market is owned by the top 1%. Their record territory dividends have been partially subsidized by federal, state, and local revenue. The benefits have not been shared proportionally with the little guy. The lopsided division of growth across quintiles proves it. The highest percentile has grown more than 10 times faster than the middle percentile over the last 30 years. This is true EVEN AFTER taxes. When you account for inflation and the actual cost of living (tied to record high profits in energy, finance, and healthcare), the middle class have actually lost relative buying power while the top 1% have drastically increased their income and bottom line wealth. In 1976 (when their taxes were much higher), the top one percent reaped 9 percent of all private income and held less than 20 percent of all private wealth in America. Now, they reap 21 percent of all private income and hold 40 percent of all private wealth. Meanwhile, the lower majority (those who are still employed) are working more hours and have less to show for it. Also, small business creates more jobs dollar for dollar and shares more revenue with the little guy than big business. And god damn it. When I threw out the figure of $250,000, I was referring to personal income. Not business revenue. If the rich don't want to be overtaxed, then they should not be overpaid. After all, firefighters save lives. They preserve our nations's wealth by putting out forest fires. Their contribution to society isn't just important. It's vital. And they only get paid $50,000 per year.
There is no economic justice in this screwed up system.
If the rich don't want to be overtaxed, then they should not be overpaid.
RAISE THOSE GOD DAMN TAXES ON THE RICH!
So, the top 1% get 24% of income (which is what we tax in this country, if you didn't know) and they pay almost 37% of all taxes.
Seems more than fair to me.
What about all those Corporations, Millionaires, and Billionaires like GE who get Subsidies, and pay no tax at all??? Does that seems fair to you?
You really think it's OK to raise taxes on the poor who use all of their money to put food on the table and a roof over their head, but it's not Ok to raise Taxes on the rich for what amounts to pocket change for them, when Unemployment is at 9%??? Are you seriously trying to conflate the two? Seriously???
That's corporate tax, not personal income tax. Different topic.
Yo, it's all taxes to me.
But I must compliment you on your ability to make lame excuses for the Wealthy. It is Awesome!
I'm using numbers. You are not. Who is making the lame excuses?
Numbers as you well know lie. And your numbers are the biggest lie of all. Stop shilling for the rich, and come in from the cold.
Oh, you're one of THOSE people who eschew all math and science and instead focus on how things "feel". Like how people are saying it "feels" like a depression. It's not, and the numbers don't bear that out.
I suggest you go to the Dictonary and look up Recession. It says see Depression. The fact that government numbers indicate that the Recession is over is because the Reagan administration In an attempte to hide the Depression he cause, effectively changed the way you calculate the numbers. (like I said, numbers lie) They effectively stopped counting the long term unemployed to end their recession.
And may I point out that Reagan's definition of the difference between a Depression and a Recession is that it's a Recession when your neighbor loses his job. But, it's a Depression when you lose your job! To over 9% of the population there is most certainly a Depression going on, and it aint just some "feeling!"
I may be "One of Those" who eschew all math and science when it come to the Voodoo Economics, but I'm sure you are one of THOSE who deny Global Warming, don't believe in Evolution, and believe that life begins at conception. The simple fact is that cutting taxes on the Rich will never result in American Prosperity! And the numbers bear that out!
Of course I believe in global warming, evolution, and you can't be alive until you're born.
But if you want to convince those of us whom are educated, you're going to have to PROVE it with NUMBERS. People like me believe in nothing that cannot be quantified.
If you support the foolish notion that cutting taxes on the rich will result in prosperity, you may be educated, but you are still dumber than a Rock! You may deal in numbers, (Which can lie) and I believe in facts which can't.
And, the fact is that the Conservatives (Both Reps, and Dems) have been in charge of Fiscal policy for the last 30 years, and the result is the worse "Recession" since the last "Depression", and that's an undiputable fact!
Until we get rid of all the Bean Counters like you who can put lipstick on a Pig and sell it as Veal, this country aint going nowhere. And that's the bottom line.
I don't know where you get the idea that this is worse than the Great Depression. We have 9% unemployment, not 25%. For the most part, those of us that didn't get into debt are doing fine, thriving in fact.
I'm not for cutting taxes for the rich. I'm for bringing the tax rates of those who aren't paying any right now up to the same rates the rich pay. If everyone paid 25% of all income, we'd be outta this hole in no time.
And, I don't know where you got the notion that I said that this Great Recession is worse than the Great Depression??? (But you must admit that we came pretty close!) We may have unemployment at 9% but you can't turn a blind eye to the fact that real unemployment rate is above 25%.
Maybe in Indiana the folks who stayed out of debt (how do you do that when you own a home???) are doing OK, but here in New York where the Occupation is taking place, It's not the case.
Here if you got a mortagage when you were working, you lost your house when you lost your job, and you're now struggling. If you got sick, and didn't have insurance, you got better, but you lost your house paying for it, and you're living in the Street.
If everyone paid 25% of all income, there would be no economy left, because it's a CONSUMER economy and all the money you take out of the hands of Consumers (the poor and the middle class) is taken out of Circulation. No Christmas, no Economy. You could look it up!
Ok, I have a mortgage that is less than 25% of my take home pay. I also own two houses outright I bought as foreclosures and made into rentals. So technically my tenants pay my mortgage.
And 25% would not grind this economy to a halt. If the ONLY thing we pay as far as taxes or fees to the government goes, we will still have 75% of our earnings as disposable income.
[Removed]
Federal income tax represents less than 1/2 of government revenue. You're not reading well enough. The richest one percent DO NOT pay 37% of all taxes. They pay almost 37% of FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. But their INCOME is subsidized in part by government revenue which is drawn for A NUMBER of sources. In other words, THEIR GOLDEN GOOSE IS SUBSIDIZED by all of us. It's all smoke and mirrors.
Then you have the size of their income to begin with. It can't be justified. Nor can their share of all private wealth. 40 percent. That's obscene. No way in hell to justify it.
RAISE THOSE TAXES ON RICH PIGS.
We don't tax wealth in this country, so ignore that part of it. If you do want to start taxing wealth, then we can welcome ourselves to 3rd world status as nobody, not even someone as far down the wealth rung as I am, is going to stand for that shit.
And just end the subsidies of incomes first. No more farm subsidies, R&D credits. If you want to fix the problem, flat tax across the board.
I can't ignore that part of it. The wealth is far too concentrated. More than twice what it was 35 years ago. That's why the middle and lower classes are in such bad shape. Their wealth has been gradually transferred to the rich.
Well you're going to have to ignore it for the sake of reality. You might want to confiscate the wealth of the 1%, but I can assure you they will either leave, or summon an army much larger then yours.
Ignore It?? That's you solution to a problem that simply cannot be ignored??? What planet are you from???
OWS is trying to "Confiscate" the wealth of the 1%. Really??? Any tax that has been proposed amounts to pocket change for the wealthy! That is nowhere near a Confiscation of the wealth of the 1%! Please! What kind of American are you?
They will leave. Are you serious??? Where are they going to go??? Spain??? Germany??? Somalia where there is "Small Government? Wealthy people from around the World come to do business in America every day. They should have to pay taxes through the nose for that privilege.
Lastly, there aint enough money in the world to summon an Army big enough to defeat the American people, and make no mistake about it, it is the American people who are rising up against the wealthy. Raise Taxes on the Rich! They aint going nowhere!
I won't ignore it. I have no power to make it happen. Only to influence my fellow citizens. Not only their voting habits but also their spending habits.
Spend your money as wisely as possible. Especially in middle and lower class communities. Check the Fortune 500 list and limit your support of high profit/low labor industries (Hollywood, pro sports, energy, credit, pharmaceutical, cable, satelite, internet advertising, video, and music, cell phone, high fashion, jewelry, ect.). Cancel all but one credit card for emergencies only. Call the provider and demand a lower rate. Be persistent. You may get it. (By the way. I gave this piece of advice long before NBC. I'm not looking for kudos. I'm telling you that NBC is directly affiliated with the credit industry. They could have given you this piece of advice years ago. Instead, they stood by and allowed their parent company, sister companies, and network sponsors to RIP YOU OFF. Even now, they give the occasional 'good guy' financial advice only because they are pressured to do so. They carefully balance every piece of 'good guy' advice with their primary goal to GET YOUR MONEY. Which is why their 'good guy' advice is so often followed by a plug for one of their sister companies, sister channels, network sponsors, or coorporate partners. For example: They tell you to pay down your credit card debt. Good advice. They should have given it years ago. Then, they tell you to GET MORE CREDIT CARDS and use them. Bad advice. One week Jean Chatzky tells you to avoid the 'free credit report' scam because it is always followed by a monthly service charge. Good advice. They should have given it years ago. The following week she stands by as her paid fellow advisor Carmen Wong strongly implies for you to have your credit monitered on a monthly basis and praises a caller for doing so. Bad advice. This is actually a plug for one of their network sponsors, coorporate partners, or parent company. The praise is nothing but a psychological trick. DON'T FALL FOR IT. Don't take ANYTHING they say at face value. Instead, read between the lines. Carefully weigh every piece of 'good guy' advice given against their primary goal. THEY WANT YOUR MONEY.). If you need a cell phone, then do your homework and find the best deal on a local pre-pay. You may be able to get one for as little as $10 a month. Don't text. The charge may seem low at the time but their profit margins are obscene. If you want home internet access, then check for a locally based provider. They can be found in nearly every city nationwide. Otherwise, use the least expensive big name provider, and share accounts whenever possible. If you need to search, then use the less popular search engines. They usually produce about same results anyway. Don't pay for any internet download. Their profit margins for such data transfers are obscene. Don’t pay to see any blockbuster movie. Instead, wait a few months and rent the DVD from a local store, borrow it, or buy it USED. Then loan it to a friend or family member. If you prefer the outing, then choose a film produced by the lesser known studeos with lower paid actors. If you want to see a big name game or event, then watch it in a local bar, club, or at home on network TV. Don’t buy any high end official merchandise and don’t support the high end sponsors. If its endorsed by a big name celebrity, then don’t buy it. If you can afford a new car, then make an exception for GM, Ford, and Dodge. If they don’t increase their market share soon, then a lot more people are going to get screwed out of their pensions and/or benefits. Of course, you must know by now to avoid those big trucks and SUVs unless you truly need one for its utility. Don’t be ashamed to buy a foreign car if you prefer it. Afterall, those with the most fuel efficient vehicles consume a lot less foreign oil. Which accounts for a pretty big chunk of our trade deficit. Its a reasonable trade-off. Anyway, the global economy is worth supporting to some extent. Its the obscene profit margins, trade deficits, and BS from OPEC that get us into trouble. Otherwise, the global economy would be a good thing for everyone. Just keep in mind that the big 3 are struggling and they do produce a few smaller reliable cars. Don’t frequent any high end department store, mall, or any business in a newly developed center or upper class community. By doing so, you encourage greedy developers, make them richer, and draw vital support away from industrial areas and away from the middle and lower class communities. Instead, support the local retailer and the less popular shopping centers. Especially in lower or middle class communities. If you can afford to buy a home, then do so. But go smaller and less expensive. Don’t get yourself in too deep and don’t buy into the newly developed condos or gated communities. Instead, find a modest home in a building or neighborhood at least 20 years old. If you live in one of the poorer states, then try to support its economy first and foremost.
There's this thing called a "return" key, please become familiar with it.
And of course I always advocate spending one's money wisely. In fact, we wouldn't be in this mess if people would have done that in the first place.
True. It would not have been anywhere near this bad if we had been more responsible as consumers.
Be on the lookout for commercial brainwash plots on TV. They are written into nearly every scene of nearly every show. Most cater to network sponsors, coorporate partners, and parent companies. Especially commercial health care. In particular, high profit pharmaceuticals and excessive medical testing. These plugs are countless, calculated, and VERY well written. They have commercial brainwashing down to a science. DON'T FALL FOR IT. Get off the couch and take care of your own body the way nature intended. There is no substitute. If you must see a doctor, then DEMAND that he/she give you more than 5 minutes of their undivided attention. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Be prepared with written questions about your condition and get them answered one at a time. If they refuse, then dispute their unreasonable charges. If they prescribe excessive medical testing, then ask if they personally own the equipment or if they are paid a commission for each test. If they find nothing new or signifigant, then dispute their unreasonable charges. If they prescribe a pharmaceutical, then ask for a generic. Better yet, concider a change in lifestyle or simple tolerance. If they still recommend the name brand pharmaceutical, then ask about any financial ties or conflict of interest. If they get offended, then dispute their unreasonable charges and consider a new doctor. If you must drug away your sniffles, worries, jitters, aches, and pains, then at least do your homework. Be aware of the possible side-effects ahead of time. Don't be surprised to find yourself back a week or two later feeling worse. In which case, you should dispute their unreasonable charges. If you are diagnosed with another medical condition, then ask your doctor what he/she has done to rule out those possible side-effects. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Don't let any greedy doctor treat you like a number, make you wait an hour, or rush you out of their office. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Don't fall for this CRAP that doctors have no choice but to over-book their time or over-charge their patients because of a high overhead. ITS A LIE. YOUR DOCTOR IS MOST LIKELY A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE. The same goes for their bogus claim to over-test so many of their patients because they are afraid of missing something and being sued for it. THAT IS ANOTHER FLAT-OUT LIE. Afterall, if this were true, then it would only explain some of the unnecessary testing. NOT THE OBSCENE CHARGES. It also wouldn't explain their own financial ties directly to the manufacturers of said testing equipment. Thats right. Most doctors hold stock in the very same companies that produce that equipment. Its another conflict of interest. So don't fall for their CRAP. Demand their undivided attention and respect. Afterall, they took an oath. If you have the opportunity before being admitted, then check the record of your hospital. Check to see if they have been investigated or sued for providing unnecessary treatment, excessive medical testing, or fraudulent billing. Dozens have already been caught doing so. Do all of the above regardless of your coverage. Don't force your employer to cover the obscene and often fraudulent charges of a corrupt health care industry. By doing so, you make the problem worse. Keep your guard up when watching ANY talk show. These people are not your friends. They are not your advocates. They are paid actors hired to get your attention and your money. Some of them are also executive producers (Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil.). Nearly every word, smile, and stupid joke is rehearsed ahead of time. Including those which take place so often during what appear to be 'technical oversights' (Today Show. Even their stage hands are mixed in behind the scenes so that you can hear them laugh at every stupid joke.). Its all fake. Its all calculated. These people are not trying to make the world a happy place. They are trying to entertain you only because their marketing studies have shown that you are more likely to drop your guard and support their sponsors. Nearly every segment is about marketing some over-priced product or service. They will use any excuse to plug a gadget, fashion item, travel destonation, credit card, university, drug, medical test, surgical procedure, movie, TV show, book, magazine, song, website, ect. Almost all of it over-priced. Almost all of it resulting in higher profits for their sponsors, partners, and parent companies. DON'T FALL FOR IT.
Big business is fine on occasion depending on their product, ethics, employment, profit margins, and profit sharing. Do your homework. If they are screwing up our economy or society, then don't pay them for it. If you want to support any legitimate charity, then do so directly. Never support any celebrity foundation. Don't be fooled by the sale of baby photos, lies about percentage of income donated, or praise from other well known public figures. Celebrity foundations are CRAP. They spend most of their funding on PR campaigns, exotic travel, and super high end accomodations for themselves. Thats right. Filthy rich public figures have been jet-setting the world in the name of 'humanity' for years. Riding in personal jets, staying in super-exclusive resorts, and living it up in exotic locations around the world the likes of which most people could never afford even if their lives depended on it. They bring along agents, advisors, publicists, hair, make-up, wardrobe, lighting, and photo crews who are also in it for themselves. They are paid six or seven figures for their part to schedule, manage, document, showcase, praise, and publicize the 'good will' of said public figures and their respective industries. Every possible expense is passed of as 'incidental' or 'necessary' and billed right back to some 'foundation' named after said public figure and/or respective industry. Every possible tax deduction is claimed. Which are incredibly vague and diverse thanks to our sold-out government. Deals are cut with major networks who agree to praise the 'good will' or 'humanitarian' effort of said public figures and plug their latest commercial project around the same time. Others from around the world pick up the story and save these industries billions in advertising every year. Resulting in higher profits and paychecks for the 1% club. When its all said and done more wealth is transfered from poor to rich. NOT the other way around. So don't support any charity named after a living celebrity. Don't be fooled or inspired by any photo you see in a magazine, any clip on TV, any affiliation, or any short term short sighted progress report. Instead, go to Charitywatch.org and look up a top rated charity to support your favorite cause. Its all there. For example: 'Habitat For Humanity' is a top rated charity. They have been for many years. They operate with a low overhead, volunteer workforce, and donated materials. They have built homes for the less fortunate in nearly every city nationwide. Including New Orleans. They do so as we speak. No similar effort can match their progress hour for hour or dollar for dollar. So there is no legitimate reason to support a slower, less efficient effort represented by a filthy rich Hollywood actor who flies in on a personal jet, takes most of the credit, and makes a deal with a major network for plugs just days before the premier of his latest film or DVD release. By doing so, you support not only the inefficient effort, but also the filthy rich actor. Concentrating more wealth and dumbing down our society further in the process. Instead, support 'Habitat For Humanity'. Its not perfect. It is affiliated with some big business. However, it is MUCH more efficient, effective, and less corrupt than 'Make It Right'. The difference is profound. In general, support the little guy as much as possible and the big guy as little as possible.
you do realize that when you rant like this, no one has time to read what you are saying. It's best to stick to one point at a time in a forum.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
Next.
Next Next Next. Butt-hole of a communist. Go pick up the poop you Fuck-holes left in Zucotti park.
Tell you what. If you see some poop that some asshole left where it doesn't belong, set the example. Be a good citizen. Pick it up and flush it down the toilet. When you've done your good deed for the day, pick up a dictionary. You don't understand the fundamentals of communism. Otherwise, you would have known better than to call me one.
The constitution gives our leaders the right to raise taxes as necessary. That's not communism. Like I said, pick up the poop yourself. Then pick up a dictionary.
Next.
LMAO Cry baby fit? read your post :/
Sight... you went full retard, never go full retard...
Next.
You can thank the smug pea brained Grover Norquist and his treasure chest of giant poster board tax pledges plastered to his wall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx30xbYo_co
"you went full retard, never "
ROFL.
Always keep the throttle back from something less than full retard!
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
ModestCapitalist is really FlamingMarxist !!
He likes to imagine a world where what is yours is his.
His delusions are pretty funny: like a drunken lunatic screaming/stumbling at the street corner.
Just taxing the rich is not going to do any good because most of the revenue is just be pissed away on useless government projects that wind up only bailing out corporations and getting getting qausi- government public and private projects further in debt..AKA Fannie Ma and Freddie Mac.What you need is clear and concise public work projects that bring jobs to the 99%.. So without public work projects put in place all the tax revenue will just be pissed away.
I'm all for cutting waste and fraud. In particular subsidies and bailouts for giant corporations and filthy rich pigs.
Close those corporate loopholes. Rase those taxes on filthy rich pigs.
Even G..D only ask for 10%. What puts anyone above that?
So are you seriously saying that raising taxes on the so called rich(I am a small business owner and I can't afford more money to government) will solve our problems? No cuts to government at all?
No. We need both. Tax increases and spending cuts. But if you really can't afford more money to the government then you must not be rich.
Are you serious? Are you really that damn ignorant?
You just wasted an entry. Make a statement regarding an actual issue. That way, I have a little more to go on with my own response. I have a hunch where you're going with this. Get there.
Okay genius. You Marxist cysts can screech about taxing the rich all you want. In the end it's the middle class that ends up paying more. And if you don't see that then you are ignorant. When the he'll are you people going to see that the answer is LESS MONEY for the government to WASTE!
Wrong. Taxes were raised primarily on the rich after the first Great Depression. They stayed high for over 30 years. Simultaneously, household incomes rose across quintiles with a 17% spread from the bottom quintile to the top quintile. The advantage went to the bottom quintile. The top quintile had the slowest growth of all. In 1929, the richest 1% held 44% of all private wealth in America. By 1976, they held less than 20%.
In other words, those higher tax rates (primarily on the rich) were part of a vital and successful partial redistribution of wealth.
Unfortunately, the tables have been reversed in the last 35 years. Now, the richest 1% hold over 40% of all financial wealth in America. Similar equations hold true across the developed world. Here we are all over again. On the verge of the worst global depression in history.
And I'm not a Marxist.
Sigh... Whatever.... Keep thinking that.
I don't get the obsession to raise taxes on the rich so badly? Great, we just made a couple million more a year. Too bad we are trillions in the hole and adding trillions a year to the debt. This whole tax the rich things seems more like punishment then some logical way to save the economy. We could tax the rich 100% their income for the year and we still wouldn't kill all the debt. Do people not realize this?
I've responded to this point many times. The debt didn't happen overnight. We don't need to pay it off tomorrow or next year or the year after. We only need to bend the curve. Gradually get back on track with a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Also. The income, wealth, and revenue all come from the same pie.
I agree that cuts need to be made all across the board. Maybe OWS should do a better job articulating that rather than continuing this charade of the bogeyman 1%.
Not instead of. In addition to.
Quick! Everyone focus your attention on taxes while we steal the value of your dollar from underneath your feet! Libertarians are wary of this argument that is why we blow the whistle for the BS that it is.
How do you 'steal' the value of a dollar? I mean besides charging an obscene fee for your product or service or printing money exclusively for the rich. Otherwise, how can you 'steal' the value?
also, while I have your attention, I hope that you know that our taxes don't even go to our government. They go directly to the Fed to pay off the "debt." None of your dollars are really worth anything because they are created from debt. Its like getting cash-back from your credit card. It isn't a good idea not to mention that nobody knows who receives the interest charged from creating our money.
good question!! The federal reserve prints money out of thin air which increases the money supply and devalues the currency. This is the primary cause for inflation and puppet governments overseas. The fed is the real enemy. And to put the cherry on top they charge interest to make these loans of money that they create out of thin air! Please, look up Hayek vs Keynes.
I realize that but that's not 'stealing' unless the intent is personal gain. Simply printing money isn't 'stealing' value unless you're printing it for yourself. The money supply has been increased by two or three percent under every administration. But that's necessary. It's not 'stealing' unless the intent is to concentrate. In which case the recipients at the higher end of the scale are in possession of stolen property. But I can't agree with you that simply printing currency as needed is 'stealing'.
Tell me, who benefits when the Fed makes SECRET loans to puppet governments (who oppress their people) at near zero interest rates? This devalues the dollar and impedes on other people's freedoms. And lets not forget the bailouts. Do you know that our Fed buys our own bonds in order to maintain the illusion of financial stability for the markets (this also increases money supply)? The markets don't need stabilizing, they need to be left alone. Commerce is like a billowing smoke, you can't control it but you can put your hands in it enough that people think you're controlling it.
If you're referring exclusively to unnecessary or fraudulent spending that's a different story. I guess we can agree on that much. Under those circumstances, it's stealing.
That is the thing! It is not fraudulent! The fed is sovereign, they don't need to ask anyone's permission to do this stuff. Literally their business is none of our business! The opposition to an audit the fed bill is insurmountable!
They work in conjunction with the federal government. That's their business. I would prefer the entity to be one of legitimate government. We might agree on that. But I'm not against growing the money supply. If it were up to me, I would increase the money supply by 50% over the next 5 years and use it in part, to fund a massive public works program. I would also raise taxes on the rich and close their corporate loopholes. Then I would tell those who refuse to work to get out of the country, go hungry, or go to jail.
For the record, it does NOT work in conjunction right now. And I do agree with creating a bit more liquidity for infrastructure. But, I think we should use the constitution as a shield from Federal corruption. The constitution is our defense against crony capitalism. PS: If competing currencies are aloud, your state can utilize its own central bank and create the infrastructure customized best for your needs. States rights need to be embraced because that is originally what America was all about. Do not underestimate a state with a central bank... check out North Dakota.
Bernenke was appointed by the Feds. So was Greenspan. Every chairman of the Federal Reserve has been from day one. The Federal Reserve is the only entity allowed by law to print US currency. Why are you so convinced that they are acting independently now?
dude. They create money without us KNOWING! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_QyqGAvNvE
dude you sound like the cry baby
ummmmmm no?
Percentage is not a good indicator: to keep 100% of $8,000 per year income is $8,000. to keep 85% of $1,300,000,000 capital gain per year as in a hedge fund manager is $1,105,000,000. These actual 2010 incomes are ominous by any stand point.
I'll second this.
And point out that it is easier to read from the bottom up to get a more diverse selection of viewpoints on any OWS topical forum post. The Reich-wing dominate the top of the thread with the disinformation, provocation and dishonest manipulation of the thread point system.
How long was Congress controlled by Democrats under Bush again? Quite a while. How long did Obama have to make his Liberal changes with a Liberal Congress? Quite a while.
Still blaming right wingers. Nice.
I'm not blaming right wingers for the $15,000,000,000,000 debt. There is plenty of blame to go around for that. But I do blame right wingers for their absolute refusal to close corporate loopholes unless it's part of a plan to lower taxes on the rich.
I am not a democrat.
Problem is that they won't be able to tax corporations without liberals wanting more taxes on everyone else.
No. Just corporate profits and those reaping more than $250,000 per year.
People making $250 a year are not rich. Change that number to something like $1 million a year and a lot more Republicans would get behind something like this. The revenue difference would not be that much either because it is going to be the super wealthy paying the majority of the increase anyways.
That depends on the size of the household. I would be ok with the increases on those making $500,000 and up. That is the top percentile. Or right around there.
I think taxing the top 0.1% is a lot more reasonable. They are the ones who are truly living a completely different lifestyle than the rest of us.
And the difference in raising taxes on the top 1% or top 0.1% is probably not all that different. The top 0.1% make so much more money that they will end up paying the vast majority of any tax increase anyways.
I know the scale within that percentile is incredibly steep. I've seen the charts. But it's plenty steep from the second percentile as well. In fact, the whole spread looks much like a BMX ramp.
"Reaping" Funny how we can use words to imply malevolence. Here's a thought, reform sales tax then you're getting somewhere!
To tell you the truth, I don't see $250,000 per year as obscene. But the scale is very steep at that level. Personally, if I could draw a line in the sand, it would be at $500,000 per year. That's 10 times the pay of a firefighter. ENOUGH!
Why do you think firefighters do their jobs? Definitely not for the pay. Why would you punish people for being successful? What kind of incentive is that?
It's not a punishment for success. It's a restriction of greed. A limit on the power of one man or woman to concentrate wealth.
Greed drives productivity, that is common sense. See the "incentive" part.
Water is necessary to survive. So is food. But if 500,000 gallons of water and 500 truckloads of food were dumped on your family, you would all die.
It's gone way too far. Greed kills. It will be our downfall.
So you're suggesting we just simply survive?
No. I said $500,000 is enough.
These dumb cocksuckers don't get that their precious businesses will go to shit if the country does.
Reps don't like paying taxes. They don't believe in governments, yet they want the military action everywhere. They believe governments exist to serve them rather than the other way around. They don't like being told what to do, yet they tell woman what to do with their unborn child. They have a few valid points but the most notable attribute about Reps is they hate people interfering with their lives, yet they push their traits on everyone else and that's totally acceptable. Oh in addition, they actually think they will become the 1% that's why the protect corporations. Its perfectly acceptable that corporations tell them how to live their lives and spend money, but completely against the government doing it. I guess they want the country ran by drug lords. Also I might add they love guns, well that is until their kid gets shot for trespassing. Then they hate them. Mind you, they only love guns if they own them, they don't want other people to own them. Their a completely selfish lot.
Most corporations pay almost no taxes and the policy of the government is to give corporations tax breaks to ship jobs overseas instead of making it a financial burden on the corporations take these jobs out of the country. The 99% is broke and jobless specifically because of these practices.
Good point. That's a big part of the problem.
Here is a list of the top ten companies that not only paid little or no taxes but got huge corporate welfare from we the people.
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. Note: This claim was made by Forbes.com in April of '10'. Shortly after, they published a followup article which included a rebuttal by Exxon Mobil. Forbes.com did acknowledge a mistake based on incorrect line items filed by Exxon Mobil. http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
I fail to see a difference between right wing and left wing.
When we have a republican president there are illegal wars, bailouts and the legal protections given to us by the Constitution are destroyed so that we are jailed for protesting and given 20 year sentences for taking photos of the police.
When we have a democrat president there are illegal wars,bailouts and the legal protections given to us by the Constitution are destroyed so that we are jailed for protesting and given 20 year sentences for taking photos of the police.
The reality of the matter is that the same people who control the US are in power regardless of who is president. The act of infighting between left and right is perpetuated and supported by the real powers that be and only distracts people who are well meaning but not well informed so as to prevent any real change to the system.
The system is terrified by the unrest in the US not because of the potential impact to Wall Street but by the possibility that real change could be affected if the movement is not quickly subverted.
If you are spending your time fighting over right vs. left you have already lost the battle.
That's because the democrats are not left wing. In the words of Arendt, paraphrased, a two party system can only be sustained when the two parties sharing power are only cosmetically different in ideology.
I agree almost 100 percent with you. I rip on both parties without mercy. But I created this page to address one specific issue. In this particular case, my beef is with republican members of congress who refuse to budge from their position of tax breaks for the rich and their respective corporate golden gooses.
I rip on both parties without mercy. Not necessarily the voters. It's not them I'm really mad at. It's our sold out leaders. On this particular issue, my beef is primarily with republicans.
I will continue to rip on our leaders with no regard for party except in those cases where one party is more to blame than the other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Sure increacing taxes will bring in more money however even if you took every penny from the 1% it would not cover the national debt.
We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. Congress wastes money with a global military presence and subsidizing oil, gas, ethanol, solar, and their buddies companies.
When need to end crony capitalism. No more subsidizing anything.
With a high concentration of income and bottom line wealth, more revenue is needed for financial aid. Also with record high charges (and profits) in health care, energy, and finance even more need for aid becomes necessary. I'm all for cutting waste but there is a strong relationship between 35 years of rising national debt and 35 years of concentrated income and wealth/capital. We don't need to pay off the national debt in 3 years or 5 or 10. After all, its been accumulating for decades. We only need to bend the curve and get on track to pay it off eventually. This will always be mathematically impossible until we address the concentration of income and wealth/capital. Most of which comes from the same damn pie anyway. The rest is legally held overseas or illegally hidden by rich pigs overseas.
Raise those damn taxes on the rich and close their corporate loopholes.
So you complaing about record high charges (and profits) in health care and you answer is to raise taxes so we can give them more.
Think about that for a minute.
More than 70% is devoted to SSI, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense. I demand cuts in spending, waste, and fraud before I give them more.
I have thought about it. We need to close corporate loopholes, raise taxes on the rich, AND cut spending. Not one or the other. All of the above.
I would like to see a little spending cuts first. They have had enough time let's see what the cuts are.
I know some people here don't like this guy but listen to what he actual says. He is absolutely correct. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMAzQ5YB304
They already have cut some spending. This super committee was supposed to take the next step. A combination of spending cuts and tax increases. They failed because the republicans refuse to close corporate loopholes or raise taxes on the rich.
Subject: Simple Math
Now, remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget.
The comparison doesn't change anything.
Close corporate loopholes (this will increase revenue or 'income'), raise taxes on the rich (this will increase revenue or 'income'), AND cut spending (this will reduce the deficit, and the debt or 'balance on the credit card'.
I'm not ripping on your comparison. It's a good one. I'm just saying that it doesn't change my position. It's impossible to 'cut' our way out of this issue. Any real attempt to do so without closing corporate loopholes or raising taxes on the rich would be a disaster. Still, it's not a short term fix.
The best we can hope for is to bend the curve with a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Simply cutting spending down to existing revenue levels would be sort of like telling a family not to use their credit card under any circumstances.
So if their kid gets hit by a car, let him die unless they have the cash to pay the hospital bill immediately.
If they get stranded on the interstate, don't get a tow truck unless they have the cash upfront.
Don't buy a car, house, water heater, unless they have the cash upfront. Don't repair the car, the roof, the plumbing, the electric or ANYTHING unless they have the cash on hand.
It would be a disaster. There is no quick fix. The best we can hope for is to bend the curve with a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.
We need to close some of our 900 military bases overseas and bring the troops home.
And we need to do something about healthcare costs in general when my dad moved to Medicare the bill was 40% higher. My dad asked why and the Dr said don't worry you don't pay it, that is what Medicare pays. That is just crazy.
We also need to stop subsidizing everything oil, gas, ethanol, banks, agriculture, and every other business that has buddies in Washington.
All good points.
Stop crying
Our president campaigned on "everyone having skin in the game" and I agree. But to agree means that EVERYONE pay income taxes, rich, poor, middle class. no one should have 0 liability. If every man woman and child is on the hook for 35k, then that is a pain everyone must share equally.
A flat tax rate would never work unless it applied to every single dollar of business and personal revenue. All subsidies would have to be eliminated. Including those under the guise of 'good will' (charity gimmicks which funnel hundreds of millions into research and development for the health care industry).
If all of this took place, it may prevent too much wealth from being concentrated. But it's already too concentrated. It must be partially reversed or no recovery will EVER take place.
[Removed]
Agreed, and I'll support that as soon as the rules of the game are rewritten to allow all with skin in it a chance to compete. The impression you give is of one that thinks it should be expected even when the game is a three card Monty, which is indeed the game we've been playing for awhile, even if it's been trying to pass as the more wholesome family board game of fee market values. Such omissions belie the veneer of fairness on the surface of the call for all to share equally in our suffering. Right now the pain is on everyone but those who society is calling to pay more taxes.
And it seems odd that folks with similar claims and calls to fairness do not recognize any of the evidence showing that in terms of percentage of their income, the people who make the least pay the most. Because their piddling incomes means all their taxes combined amounts to a pittance compared to the amounts the rich can provide even when loopholes allow them to pay much less in terms of percentage of their income, proponents of fairness use absolute numbers in most of their propaganda instead of actual percentage of income paid. But the stranglehold on information is over, and without active ability to stifle it the truth WILL out.
Fairness indeed is the equilibrium that must win out in the end, which means your argument will hold water down the line, but only after adjustments are first made to make it so all can have enough skin to put in the game after their basic needs are met.
[Removed]
raising taxes is not the answer. Cutting the spending is.
Are you in touch with reality? How is cutting spending going to create one job. We have been cutting spending for the last 30 years, and I'm still waiting for the prosperity that all that cutting was supposed to bring. Get real!
cut spending for the last 30 years? in what universe? 0bama has o.k.'ed more spending in his time in office than all the other presidents before him. He has said no to the canada/us pipeline,............thousands of jobs that could have been created will never happen. by cutting spending ( 0bamcare, in 0bamacare there is a3.8% federal tax on the sales price of a house, that will really be a boon to the already dead housing market)) people will spend and the voluntary taxes on goods purchased come into d.c. companies, feeling secure about the country will hire ( create jobs) as people spend their own money . raise taxes and people and companies sit tight. afraid of the future. why do you think cars are not selling? people are uneasy about this administration and their prolifigate spending.
Reagan nearly tripled spending. Obama and Bush both spent more dollars but Reagan increased spending (by percentage) more than any other president. But it's nowhere near that simple in any case. Nowhere near it.
and your thoughts on the things in 0bamacare?
I hate the mandates. No one on this planet will force me to purchase health coverage. I will pay the fine but I will not purchase coverage. Not as long as the health care industry is riddled with greed and fraud. Anyway, the problem can't be solved as long as we have this absurd 'drug and doctor' mentality.
Where did you get all that nonsense from??? Fox News!
Jesus, you don't just buy the garbage they peddle, you try to repackage it and sell it to your neighbors. All you have said, is basically a Republican talking point that's a lie, wrapped in a half truth, based on an innuendo, that is disguised as an enigma. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. the people aint buying the garbage you're selling.
In answer to your question,...............from real life. Any response to the 3.8% federal tax ( on the selling price, NOT your profit)on a house in 0bamacare?
That is an obvious Republican talking point and you know it!
Stop Shilling for the Rich, and trying to defend the indefensible! The moment you called it "Obama Care", that Independent mask you're trying to wear fell off!
The next thing you're gonna try to say is that Obama Care has "Death Panels!" Please!
HR3200 page 429 lines 12-25 the govt will specigy which docotrs can write end of life orders. HR 3200 58 &59 the govt will have real time access to an individuals bacnk acct. and will have the authority to make real time fund transfers from those accounts.
call it whatever you like,........there is a 3.8% federal tax on the selling price of your house/ What has that got to do with health insurance/care? Also in there is,....................78 and diagnosed with cancer? too bad, no treatment for you.
See, I knew you was going to pull that Death Panel crap!
Let me put it this way for you, if there is a Tax on homes, and there is a death panel in the Bill, you can bet your bottom dollar that they were put in there by a Conservative.
You can't blame The President for a Bill that was developed in the House & the Senate. What, you think he should have vetoed the whole thing to stop this one thing? It was either take what he had, or have no Bill. You're trying to say that Obama is a Dictator that got everything he wanted in the Bill, which is not the case. Were you watching when this whole thing went down??? It's called Compromise! You may hate it, but that's how you get things done in America.
Get serious.
It's not crap. it's in HR3200
Conservatives /republicans did NOT write the bill. it's the product of Nancy Pelosi & Co. No matter what bill is sent to the president,the president can VETO it. Don't you remember nancy saying ,...........you have to pass it to find out what's in it.
So, the guys in the house who held up the Heath care Bill to put in an unneeded abortion clause in it weren't Conservatives??? Really!
And, Senators like Ben Nelson, Blanch Lincoln, and Tail Gunner Joe Lieberman who held it up in the Senate till they got what they wanted, weren't Conservatives??? Really, were you watching the same debate I was??? They may have been Democrats, but they Vote Republican every chance they get. So what are they really?
Like I said the President COULD have vetoed the Bill, but then there would be no Bill,and who would that have helped but the insurance companies???
You can lay the blame at Nancy Pelosi's feet all you want, but remember if she had gotten her way it would have been a Single Payer Bill! (Your Hair would have caught on fire over that, so be happy for what you did get)
And, she got the Bill passed! You may hate it, and it has flaws, but when you consider John Boehner's record, you have to give her props for getting the job done.
And lastly, who is able to sell their home in this economy anyway? I am willing to bet the house that the only sales going down are for and by the wealthy. In that case, a 3.8% tax is a good thing.
when obamacare was pased the dems had a majority in both the house and the senate. lieberman is not a concervative,....he's an " independent" he ran as one after the dems dumped him. house are selling , not at the housing market bubble prices, but they're selling. slowly. ALL house prices have come down. Most house are not owned by the rich. If you own a house go to zilliow.com and see what you house was worth and what it's worth now. if you don't own a house , look up anyones house,........look at the charts. you think that a 3.8% federal tax on the sale of a house is agood thing? why?
What debate were you watching during the passage of the Health Care Bill??? On Paper, the Democrats had 60 Votes, but in reality President Obama had a bare majority in the Senate, which meant that he couldn't get past a Republican Filibuster without at least 2 Republican votes. (Remember Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins???)
And, in the house, if he had such a large Majority why did he have to accept an anti abortion clause from the Conservative "Blue Dogs" to pass it there??? Or did you miss that??? In the Senate, he had 60 on Paper alright, but when it came down to the vote he only got 53. (You could look it up!)
Tail Gunner Joe Lieberman isn't a Conservative??? Really??? Then why does he vote consistently as one??? Why does Ben Nelson Vote as one? How about Blanche Lincoln & Mary Landrieu when did they ever vote for a Liberal bill?? No my friend they were Democrats in name only, and the President knew he had to compromise (i.e. accept things he didn't support) to get it past. It's called GOVERNING!
I own a home and my property in Manhattan has gone from 750K to 1.5K in the last year. If I were ever to sell, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Buyer would have to pay any Tax.
I agree that most sellers are not rich, but the only people out there buying are the Rich! So, if a 3.8% Tax hike is gonna soak the rich, I think it's a good thing, OK.
Any more questions?
0bama bought the votes he needed,...remember the cornhusker kickback? Under obamacare ,.the SELLER pays a 3.8% federal tax on the selling price of the house. That tax will not soak the rich , it will bleed average , ordinary home owners.
I don't buy it!
It's in 0bamacare.
Tax rates on average are lower than ever. As a result, revenue as a percentage of GDP is down to 15%. That's about as low as it's ever been. That's not a spending problem. That's a tax problem.
I'm all for cutting waste and abuse. This includes some entitlements for those who sit on the couch when they should be looking for a job. Also outrageous payments for over priced prescription drugs, payments for unnecessary medical testing, subsidies for the most profitable industries in the world, outrageous no-bid contracts, unnecessary poorly planned wars (Viet Nam and Iraq), hundreds of unnecessary military bases around the world, and bail outs (the share holders should lose whatever returns were paid during the period in which the capital was lost. All bonuses paid within the period should be returned.).
Close those corporate loopholes and raise taxes on the rich.
you could confiscate all the money that the "rich" have and you couldn't run the govt for a month. Cutting spending is the answer.
That's a reckless exaggeration. The richest one percent hold much more than enough wealth to pay off the entire national debt. I'm not suggesting confiscating all of their ill-gotten wealth. Just a portion. Then we could bend the curve and get on track to pay off the debt in a decade or so.
It's not an exaggeration. Why do you say that people with money is "I'll-gotten"? Cutting spending is the only way to go. Do you continually spend more than you take in? That's what the govt does. Do you think you would be able to help your debt situation by spending more? the govt does.
C'mon already. It is an exaggeration. The entire national debt is around $15,000,000,000,000. That's not a month worth of spending. That's several decades worth of deficit all added up. The richest 1% in America hold much more. Well over $20,000,000,000,000. Again, I'm not for total confiscation. Just bending the curve and getting back on a sustainable track.
the usa takes in x amount of money each month, it has made itself obligated to pay x + each month. They only way to get back on track is to cut the spending.
The only way to get back on track is to close corporate loopholes, raise taxes on the rich, AND cut spending. Not one or the other. All of the above.
raising taxes on the "rich" will do nothing for the probelm is outgo, not intake
Stop flying around in right wing fantasy land. Go back to the top of our exchange and read it again.
i mostly agree but it is not really the individual we should blame but the system that allows them to profit from the labor of others. once you have that system in place then it will promote and induce greed.
When you have corporatists in bed with the government, and taking the highest positions, e.g. goldman sachs lining the halls of the Obama cabinents, you don't have true capitalism. sadly, although there are calls for more regulation in the market, all those regulations are tilted to benefit the 1%. We have a virtual complete merger of corporation and government in this country.
chomsky calls it the corporate state nexus - mussolini coined the term fascism and he defined it as "corporatism" - i think we agree - the system is rotten and must be changed
But the system wasn't created by a robot. It was created and sold out by people. Along the way, more and more became intoxicated by the concept of extreme personal wealth. If we do not take a real stand against that concept, and soon, our entire society will crumble to the ground.
The Roman Empire collapsed because of greed. Those final days must have been total chaos. A complete societal breakdown. We are so incredibly naive and obsessed with riches (like they were) that we can't bring ourselves to admit that our entire society is in real jeopardy. Look how much worse it's gotten in just the last 5 years.
It happened before. It will happen again. This time on a global scale.
Greed kills. It will be our downfall.
Yeah, and then the world will come and steal from us what they themselves produced as a sort of twisted justice for causing a world-wide depression. If that happens, I cannot imagine the rich will be spared. I don't care if it's their faults or not. There's still a lot of people who think it is, so God help them if the economy collapses.
again we mostly agree but the american indian did not have a problem with greed - their system of living did not induce greed and rewarded those who were more interested in the welfare of the tribe. there is a good book called "the long descent" about how we are going down as a global society. also some good books about how capitalism came into being - the only one i can remember at the moment is "the invention of capitalsm"
These are the comments this forum is not intended for. Everybody is allowed to have an idea. A bad idea is the measuring stick for a good idea. People who have the Republican or Democrat agenda in mind are there because of an idea they have. No matter how misguided they might be. Everybidy can help change the world with positive feedback.
[Removed]
[Removed]
If taxes were raised a great amount on the rich, would it be more than a drop in the bucket in the huge debt this country has piled up? I hear raise taxes, and all that, but isnt the real problem a run away Congress that has been a bunch of retards since Gerald Ford until now, chicken to raises taxes, chicken to put the brakes on spending, chicken to lose their job, so pacify the special interest? Bitch about the rich all you want, but congress are the true criminals, they are the ones who set policy.
Bought and paid for by the rich. Partners in crime.
What you say is true, but, congress has the real power, thus the real shame.
No need to raise taxes, just let the bush breaks expire!
Can we all assume that you don't earn close to $250k a year? I take it $250k is the baseline income amount to be considered part of the 1%?
$250k was a number Obama pulled out of his rear when he started touting all of this. The figure is really closer to $350k. And that's even just the math of it, not the reality. I will make around $350k this year but I don't qualify as the 1% because of lack of assets. I have a family of 7 to support. I work hard, out of state away from my family to provide for them. Some OWS people here say oh well you aren't who we are talking about but I would get slammed with whatever the ultra rich would get slammed with. So guess who I'm going to side with? My family. They do come first, and I am more than prepared to defend our lives, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As of 2008, 350K was the baseline AGI to be top 1%
Who made that decision?
What do you mean "who made that decision"???? Reality made that decision... the IRS numbers made that decision. It's not like somebody waved a wand and said so. It means that in 2008, the lowest AGI on record to still be in the top 1% was roughly 350K. The date comes from the National Taxpayers Union.
So a person making $300k a year is part of the 99%? Not bad.
Yeah, it's not like making it to the 1% is all THAT difficult. I think what people are talking about here are the 1/500th%
I don't want to either. My contribution to society is important. But it's not as important as that of a cop, firefighter, soldier, or teacher. Therefore, I am paid less.
THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.
Your position is clear now. Thanks.
I hope you're not implying that I'm a Marxist. I'm not. I believe in a reasonable scale of income and a relatively free market. But not an obscene scale or freedom to gouge.
So you turn down raises when they are offered to you if you would end up making more than a cop, firefighter, soldier, etc?
I believe in a reasonable scale. I have no desire to reach the top or anywhere near it.
Okay, but you didn't answer my question.
Yes. I already have twice. Not only do I have no desire to be paid more than a cop, firefighter, or soldier. I won't have it. If given the opportunity, I will refuse.
I suspect that your question is loaded. Go ahead. Take your shot.
Not a loaded question. Just that you have taken an interesting position in life.
Now, are you talking about the salary of an LAPD officer that can reach $100k with overtime or a small town cop earning $40k a year? :-)
Why do you want to know?
Because your position is interesting. You are actually limiting your earnings by choice based on a belief you are not worthy of earning more then a teacher, cop, etc. It sounds noble on one side. The other side could be you have set the top end of your worth at the highest salary of one of those selected professions and that makes your position a little less noble and more of a false showing of humbleness.
Does your immediate family (if you have a spouse and kids) agree with your belief?
My income is well under that of a first year New York firefighter.
I won't answer anymore personal questions.
No worries. Have a happy Thanksgiving.
You too.