Politics

[Ghisteslwchlohm]

Occupy Wall Street kitchen staff protesting fixing food for freeloaders
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL

HA!

It's really interesting, another thing the article points out, that the protesters have developed a sort of sub-society. It's pretty cool that there is an organic sort of structure forming into this group. Although I really don't care for the protesting, being interested in social psychology as I am, I would like to see this group grow as a miniature social system. Purely from an observational standpoint, of course.

[Fuse]

This is great...

[likwidtek]

Regarding Fuses post (there's also a part 2 to the video) but this is what I commented on it:

I'm not sure how he gets that he's paying 50% but this is a pretty good conversation an an interesting point of view from one of the 1%

I think that the #OWS are upset for sure. I think that a lot of them think the answer is to get government more involved, tax and regulate more to fix this. Personally I think it's the collusion of corporations and government that caused this. The scam can be busted up if we disarm the corporations; Meaning, take away the ability for corporations to manipulate the economy and siphon tax payer dollars. That is, get money out of politics and get the government OUT of the economy.

This is another NOT black and white issue. It's not the 1% vs the 99% it's the goverment/corporate (corporatists) vs everyone else. Not all of the 1% are in bed with congress and paying them off. Again, it's easy to get trapped in the Us versus Them absolutist way of thinking.

We've got to think rationally about this.

[Fuse]

and MY reply...
Agreed. I'm a firm believer that what makes you a criminal is breaking the law and hat makes you morally despicable is doing immoral things.
Simply being rich, owning a multi-million dollar business, or offering items or services that many people want is not illegal or immoral. That's not saying that there aren't illegal or immoral practices going on in business.

[Tbone]

I think that the #OWS are upset for sure. I think that a lot of them think the answer is to get government more involved, tax and regulate more to fix this. Personally I think it's the collusion of corporations and government that caused this. The scam can be busted up if we disarm the corporations; Meaning, take away the ability for corporations to manipulate the economy and siphon tax payer dollars. That is, get money out of politics and get the government OUT of the economy.

Um, I don't think hash tags work on his forum...haha!

I think a major concern is that politics are being controlled by corporations. Because corporations are now allowed to donate without limit and without the need to go public with it, many politicians are forced by their party (or by their own greed) to push an agenda that's not good for the general public and for Americans at large, but benefit the corporations. Basically, the politicians' bread is buttered by corporations, and the people feel like the politicians should work for them and not for the big businesses.

You could say "just don't vote for someone you think is in bed with corporations", but that just means you wouldn't vote. It permeates at every level.

This of course applies to taxes as well. 45% of households don't pay income tax because we're too poor to begin with. The "super rich" and middle class pay income tax, but the difference is in the tax breaks. The top 1% are able to get their ACTUAL income tax down quite a bit through tax breaks and loopholes. The average income tax rate for these people has dropped from 26% in 1992 to 17% now (as opposed to the 35% which is what they would pay before the breaks and exemptions). There are $1.1 trillion of deductions, exemptions and credits annually.

Note that these numbers may differ slightly depending on what system you're using (I'm not an economist), but take this chart:



You an cleary see that over $5mil people start paying less, and after $10mil it drops drastically. A "job creator" making between $500k - $1mil is paying a higher percentage than a "job creator" making over $10 mil. If $10mil was on par with the $2-5mil, our debt would just about go away.

The average income rate for all Americans is 9.3%, so the rich are still paying more. The problem is that the tax rate going from 26% to 17% for the top 400 earners has put a burden on our debt, combined with frivolous spending from the government. Just as the burden has been created by a combination of tax breaks and spending, the solution should be on both ends as well.

And here's where the frustration comes in. The tax breaks for the super wealthy can't go away because the super wealthy control policy. Rather than reverse some of the tax cuts, the discussion is being steered towards putting the burden created from cuts for the super wealthy onto the middle and lower class. In this economy, the middle and lower class cannot support this burden. It would basically destroy any middle class left in America.

On top of all of this is the bailouts for the huge banks, who were "too big to fail". So large corporations get a do-over after driving the economy into the shitter, and you begin to get the feeling that Wall Street owns this country.

Now I'm not an economist, and so I can't claim that I know everything about this. I'm really just trying to understand the OWS movement the best I can. From what I can tell, the main issues are unlimited funds transferred from corporations to government (corporations are people), the tax breaks of the wealthy being "untouchable" due to this corruption (and therefore putting the burden on the middle class), and the mismanagement and corruption of Wall Street being not only forgivable, but rewarding those who created the problems.

As for the guy who says over half of his income goes to the government, he needs to find a better accountant! Heh.

[Fuse]

The best explanation of the occupy movement I've heard was in a comparison to the Tea Party.

The tea party is upset that the big banks got a bailout.
The occupy movement is upset that they themselves didn't get a bailout.

And to T's first point - I'm ok with business doing whatever they want with their money. They want to buy ads for someone they want in office? That's their business. Don't like it? I don't only suggest NOT voting for the guy, but I suggest NOT buying from that business. As Schiff explained, business doesn't get big by doing a shitty job. In the correct way, they get big because the people give them money for goods and services. Also to T's point, when government steps in, steals the money from the people, and then decides what businesses don't get to fail it creates an unbalanced dichotomy of fairness - and as seen recently, usually creates an opposite effect than originally intended.

My questions is why the OWS folks are yelling at business and not government...

[Ghisteslwchlohm]

I think that the #OWS are upset for sure. I think that a lot of them think the answer is to get government more involved, tax and regulate more to fix this. Personally I think it's the collusion of corporations and government that caused this. The scam can be busted up if we disarm the corporations; Meaning, take away the ability for corporations to manipulate the economy and siphon tax payer dollars. That is, get money out of politics and get the government OUT of the economy.

Um, I don't think hash tags work on his forum...haha!

Hash tags work EVERYWHERE.

[Tbone]

Businesses pay major bucks to have their policies embedded into the dialogue of the public. The public doesn't have the money to embed their policy ideas into the businesses, and so this is the way they are going about it.

As for not patronizing certain businesses, the loopholes that currently exist prevent the public from knowing which businesses donate to which politicians (for a breakdown, look up Colbert's SuperPAC running gag).

As for where the corruption stems from, surely the government and large corporations are both to blame. Corporations paid mega bucks to control the government. Government allowed it to happen. From what I've seen, politicians have made an attempt to get out from under the corporations' thumbs (placing limits on donations, for example), but that was counter-acted by the "corporations are people" thing. Not every corporation is to blame just like not every politician is to blame, but certainly Wall Street is just as much of a pressure point as DC is.

Our government was set up to be by the people, for the people. I think many people feel like the government right now is set up to be by the corporations with lots of money, for the corporations with lots of money. Politicians are pandering more to $$ than they are to votes, because $$ can buy votes.

[Lithium]

I'm just going to point this out because it better realizes the '50% of my income' comment. But should really be called 50% of my success tax.

Corporations are essentially double taxed--if not in some cases triple taxed. The first tax isn't there for every situation but it's sales tax. Tax on goods that both the company buys and sells. Let's call that 10%. Then any profit that is made by the company is taxed at the corporate rate, which again is like 35%, and let's assume 20% after breaks. And finally payouts, dividends, and stocks that executives take are taxed at their bracket, 35%. Ok, so lets say they take some tax breaks (which are there to promote investment in America) and get their income tax down to 20%.

So by that logic they would be paying 10% + 20% + 20% = easily 50% to taxes.

[Da6onet]

About corporate greed today:
I feel the problem at the corporate level is that for some reason the market is not punishing those who make bad decisions, or at least, we're not seeing the kind of fallout one would expect. In theory, if an 8 man board destroys its 20,000 employee company with risky or incompetent decision making, that company's resources (including its labor force) should be cannibalized by the companies that didn't fail and those board members should find themselves out of work in the same capacity for a very long time, if ever again. Instead we see the opposite happening- if the company doesn't get bailed out by Uncle Sam the board members just find another company in need of their "expertise" and they continue about their way. It baffles my mind that at the highest level of the corporate world the effective risk of bad decision making can be minimized like that. My only hope is that the next generation of C-levels want to get rid of the old ones as quickly as possible so they can make bad billion dollar decisions.

About candidates brought to you by (insert company sponsor here):
First off, lets be clear about a couple things. Corporations still cannot give money directly to federal candidates or national party committees. That ban dates to 1907. The justices also upheld some other restrictions, including disclosure requirements for nonprofit groups that advocate for political candidates. At any rate, this gets back to my rant about the electorate- Yes, you can actually stop voting for people you don't think are doing a good job representing your interests, that's how democracy works. Corporations do not get a vote. If you want an eye opening experience, volunteer to do exit polling, especially asking why people voted for candidate x. You will find that the people that actually do vote (little over 41%), don't know much about the people they just elected to office; in fact some don't even know the names of the people they just voted for minutes ago. Only a very small percentage of Americans seriously participate in our governance. Sad to say a close friend of mine is an apathetic voter and its been a long standing point of contention between us. The corporations are just giving the people what they want, brand name products.

edit: forgot to agree with Tbone, I have never understood why our income tax structure was not scaled up beyond 380k (not necessarily beyond the marginal 35% rate, but have a larger scale with better marginal rates for those of us earning six figures or less). That said, it wouldn't matter, our tax laws are enforced about as well as our campaign finance laws (even before the 2010 ruling).

[NoCry]

Effective tax rates paid by the rich are less because it tends to be classed as investment income - ie income derived from shares owned in corporations which contribute to the economy and employ people. Without such tax breaks where is the incentive to invest and take an entrepreneurial approach?

Just my two cents and based on English taxation which I assume is comparable at least.

Ana/ broin - penny for your thoughts

[likwidtek]

Teachers, Educators and Administrators:  What is your opinion on the Department of Education?  With political talk of closing it down I'm curious what more people actually involved in education directly feel about it.

[NoCry]

They dilly dally for 6 months; get an unbelievable deal and then screw it. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you: Greece.

[Lithium]

That's Socialists for ya...

[JazzyC]

So by that logic they would be paying 10% + 20% + 20% = easily 50% to taxes.

Simple maths would actually show they wouldn't be paying that 50% in tax.

For example.  A company earned $200.  $50 was cost of goods.  So, take 10% is $5.  In a world where they have no overheads or other costs, all the rest is profit.  So 20% of $150 is $30.

That makes $35 in tax.  Surely 50% in taxes would amount to $100?

Ok, I haven't accounted for the other 20% you've stated as coming from payouts, etc.  But surely that is taxation of the individual rather than the corportation.

But, even if I did throw in another 20% tax it wouldn't add to 50%.  Even taxing 20% on the whole $200 would equate to $40.  Add to the $35 you already have and you end up with $75.  Still not that 50% tax.