Forum Post: Understanding the 99%'s Demands
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 25, 2011, 12:33 a.m. EST by MarkSPQR
(10)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We want a bigger cut of your winnings when you take risk (tax increases), but we're coming after you if you lose so much we have to help you out (bailouts) even though we had no problem when your risk taking was working in our favor (taxes collected when the risk paid off). We added more rules (Frank-Dodd, Obamacare, etc), now we're suffering and can't pay our bills (unemployment, deficits) because you're being too conservative (Corps sitting on $2 Tril in cash) and not taking any risk. You're greedy and corrupt for using your winnings to reduce our cut and/or influence the rule making, the problems in America are your fault." ... is that about right?
Hey they won't tuch Toshiba because it's a foreign company, and they are leaving UPS alone because they're helping the foreign company screw people. As long as you're anti-American, you're golden.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/something-to-think-about-part-1/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Whom is this post addressing? Washington or Wall street? WE have to blame Washington for all of this. It was Clinton who allowed the demise of Glass-Steagall which allowed financial firms to run wild. If the Justice Department decides fraud and extortion were not illegal don't be surprised when the mafia runs amok!
We have to blame ourselves, we didn't Occupy Wall Street during the boom years. We didn't demand Wall Street to take less risk and to cut spend or raise our taxes to make up the lost revenue from them not taking risky bets. We didn't demand higher credit standards for mortgages, actually we campaigned for the opposite. Most people don't realize that the massive deficits NYC is facing right now is because of the loss of tax revenue from the Financial Sector, which pays almost 60% of the cities income taxes.
If you had occupied wall st at that time no one would have paid attention to you because there was no bailout and, for example, the Clinton years left the nation with a surplus. It was the ten year war along with bush tax cuts that did in the economy, not to mention the deregulation that began during Reagan and continued thereafter. The bailouts were only the last nail in the coffin. Again it is washington you need to look towards. Wall street cannot regulate itself that's the job of law makers.
I disagree, no one would have paid attention because it was benefiting them at the time. Before you use the word "surplus" you need to remember that doesn't mean the same thing for the government as for anyone else. The government spends all the money it takes in, even the Social Security money because it takes in more than it pays out. I gives the SS Administration IOU, then pretends they aren't there. Its like pretending those loans you took out against your 401k don't exist, right now the SSA is sitting on $30 Tril in IOUs .. google it and see if I'm making this up. On the flip side, why did we have a boom in tax revenue that year ... because of the enormous gains WallStreet made during the Dotcom bubble. The Bush Tax cuts are the reason for the growth for the last decade, but just the capital gains part, the 3% different in the marginal rate makes no difference (see the Laffer Curve). I think everyone paying the same 15% on capital gains is necessary for fairness and to help limit risk taking. When you make certain people pay higher capital gains rates, you change the value of investing for those people ...they make less money for investments, which mean you get less of it.
Well first of all its $2.6 trillion in IOUs, I don't know where you get $30 Trillion .It is no secret that Medicare and SS are unsustainable under the current system because government has been putting its fingers in the cookie jar but that's not the only reason why SS and Medicare are at risk, AP writer Stephen Ohlemacher reported that "the cost of Social Security benefits will exceed payroll tax revenue by approximately $29 billion this year, because of the severe recession which has reduced payroll tax revenue at the very time that many unemployed Americans have been forced to retire early." He goes on to write "What it all boils down to is that, in order to pay full benefits this year, Social Security will have to come up with an extra $29 billion to supplement the inadequate payroll tax revenue. Where will that money come from? It will have to come from increased taxes or from borrowed money."
SS has had a surplus ever since it was enacted and its also the largest government expenditure and it should have been saved and invested but again we are looking at the freedoms we allow government to take under the law. I don't know how you can disagree with regulations that limits the use of tax payers dollars by the government or the financial sector. And I don't really know if people were benefitting from the financial boom, many people were getting rich but the average middle-class person was just coasting, not in a steep economic decline as they are now. Is it that you think a 15% capital gains can help save the economy? Or is it just a suggestion of how to curb recklessness with investors? Because I'm not sure this would do anything but curtail wealth except for the upper classes (not the rich). Even Forbes has outlined a way to stop government from seizing capital gains wealth, one suggestion is to donate what you would have payed in capital gains and then writing it off as a deduction. You can also borrow against assets instead of selling them again avoiding capital gains tax. Here is the link so you can see how someone can avoid paying capital gains tax: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/avoid-capital-gains-tax-anschutz-personal-finance-baldwin-tax-strategy.html
Again I still believe you need stronger regulation but first you have to reign in Washington, the den or corruption. Once you've done that then you can successfully curb reckless practices in the financial sector.
the $2.6 Trillion is the nominal value of the SS trust, so a $10 million IOU from 1936 still shows up as a $10 million note today ... so when you adjust the actually value of it, it comes out to $30 tril in real dollars.
Here is what I have a problem with, the richest 1% pay half of all income taxes and the bottom 50% pay no net income tax. This comes directly from the IRS and I have yet to see a study that refutes this fact. So let me explain how the average middle class person benefited from the financial booms ... lets say Goldman Sachs creates a Credit Default Contract that generates $100 mil in net income, their avg tax rate is around 20% federal and 6% state ... so off the top the people get $26 million dollars, lets say the exec running that division has a total salary of $10 mil a year with bonus, the total marginal tax rate in NYC is 50%, so that's $5 million. So off of this transaction "the people" receive $31 million in taxes, that pays for cops, teachers, etc. This means lower taxes and social programs for the middle class, this is why all of these major cities are in tax revenue and deficit nightmares ... losing the tax revenue of 3 or 4 "1%ers" can reek more havoc on a city budget than 1,000 foreclosures. Also remember that "recklessness" of an investor is a big risk someone took and loss, when you win your called a genius ... hindsight is 20/20.
The only way to regulate the financial markets is through a NWO, there is no other way besides a One World Government ... look at how the EU banned short selling of banks and countries' bonds, you can sit there on your computer screen and click on your account in the US or Asia and short stocks ... its all part of globalization, no borders and no rules.
LOL! Woah there partner! Hmmm, I know what you are saying but I am not buying your conclusions. I don't believe a NWO is the answer anymore than I believed the euro was the answer. Why? Because they prove themselves to be undemocratic, the fact that the Vatican believes in such a scheme is enough to make me suspicious. Globalization only means no borders and no rules for a ruling elite but it means loss of sovereignty and democratic power for everyone else. You're going to have to go into more detail of how you believe your idea would benefit the working and middle classes and how the democratic process will be upheld. We've already seen how democracy has been undermined in individual european countries through the EU and we have seen how a common currency lead to the demise of the union precisely because of the 'no borders no rules' illusion allowing GSachs to fix the books for Greece and undermine the entire European enterprise (maybe a blessing in disguise). Its this idea of linking world economies that left other nations holding the bad debts swapped in bundles. How the hell are you going to regulate a global market when its proven individual nations couldn't even regulate their own?
[Removed]
The key is education ... people need to understand what we are dealing with, then we can come up with solutions. Dogma is the real enemy. I get equally frustrated explaining to Liberals that the barebones of their platform is using force to get people to place the needs of the collective over their own individualism as I do explain to conservatives that the rules of capitalism fall apart as the system get bigger and it isn't self regulating or redundant as it grows .... its not us against them, its WE need to figure out a better way to doing things going forward, without looking behind
Well I can agree with what you say. There is a very black and white approach people take to ideologies and economic models. One need not swallow the whole thing, one can modify and change to suit ones social and cultural needs. It should be 'we' but right now the union is mired in 'us and them'.
Well, I'm not quite sure...but it would sound pretty funny coming out of Jim Carey's butt...
where am I wrong here?
Why gamble with other people's money? That's just asking for an asswhoopin'
because people give you money to gamble ... getting a loan to start a business, buy a house, or purchase a car is a gamble, you winnings are the interest you make off the money you loan them in your bank account. Also the people benefit on the taxes you pay when your gamble pays off.
So who's going to bail out us piss-poor peoples when our 'risks' is rigged from the get-go? certainly not the bastards who instigated this whole mess...
Explain how the risk are rigged?