#OccupyWallstreet

[Fern]

The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance
-snip-

As a proponent of a 'real' estate tax, I'd be interested in seeing this info. Pls give us a link confirming your assertion bolded above.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-

OWS is at the suggestion gathering phase, rather than the proposal phase.

Can you enumerate the proposals offered so far? I'd be interested in seeing them.

Fern

 

[monovillage]

Can you enumerate the proposals offered so far? I'd be interested in seeing them.

Fern

Wouldn't we all. *wiggling fingers*

 

[Ninjahedge]

I would like to eliminate the estate tax. You earned it, you should be able to give it to Jr w/o paying tax on it (the way this is accomplished now is through various means like incorporating your assets so you are really not giving any CASH, per se, to your kid....)

BUT, that being said, I also want the guys that HAVE this money to be paying a slightly larger percentage back into the kitty than the "typical" earner, being as most of their income is arguably disposable (as opposed to people who need the money for, I don't know, FOOD and SHELTER?).

The problem most people have with the current system is not how much they are currently paying, but two other things.

1. How much others are paying.
2. How that money is being spent.

Hell, I still can't figure out why 90% of the House and Senate are even given salaries! Add to that they vote themselves a raise? Are they that hard up for cash?

 

[Craig234]

Can you enumerate the proposals offered so far? I'd be interested in seeing them.

Fern

Waiting for your list of three inaccurate news stories from each of the 'liberal' tv hosts you listed and agreed to provide recently.

 

[Craig234]

I would like to eliminate the estate tax. You earned it, you should be able to give it to Jr w/o paying tax on it (the way this is accomplished now is through various means like incorporating your assets so you are really not giving any CASH, per se, to your kid....)

BUT, that being said, I also want the guys that HAVE this money to be paying a slightly larger percentage back into the kitty than the "typical" earner, being as most of their income is arguably disposable (as opposed to people who need the money for, I don't know, FOOD and SHELTER?).

The problem most people have with the current system is not how much they are currently paying, but two other things.

1. How much others are paying.
2. How that money is being spent.

Hell, I still can't figure out why 90% of the House and Senate are even given salaries! Add to that they vote themselves a raise? Are they that hard up for cash?

A bit clueless.

First, you don't say a word about whether you have any concern about the record concentration of wealth - so presumably that's not a factor in your desired policies.

Second, you think that our politicians should get no compensation - leaving them to get income wherever else they can, unless you think they don't need to eat.

 

[Ninjahedge]

A bit clueless.

First, you don't say a word about whether you have any concern about the record concentration of wealth - so presumably that's not a factor in your desired policies.

What, I have to repeat myself. Go look at the previous posts man. "Seriously" don't start poking people that agree with you with sticks.

Second, you think that our politicians should get no compensation - leaving them to get income wherever else they can, unless you think they don't need to eat.

Nope. But we have no chance of getting a politician that does NOT get any income from somewhere else. If our politicians CAN be isolated, then paying them for their job makes sense. But if we have a millionaire in office that earns $500K a year, why does the taxpayer have to pay him a self-approved salary of $150K? (Or thereabouts).

As for "not needing to eat", again, BS. If you bothered to even look, a US rep is never in want for food. You know they DO have a cafeteria and other services provided for them.

I mean, you already know about the nude gym, right?

 

[Fern]

Waiting for your list of three inaccurate news stories from each of the 'liberal' tv hosts you listed and agreed to provide recently.

Haven't had time to watch lately. Watched the debate and it's coverage one night and a rental movie the other. It'll have to wait until next week. MSNBC just runs prison shows during the weekend.

Fern

 

[novasatori]

I love the logic of some.
It's like if I took my car to a mechanic when it wouldn't start, and he tells me nothing is wrong with it, and that if there happened to be something wrong with it what am I going to do to fix it.

 

[Fern]

I would like to eliminate the estate tax. You earned it, you should be able to give it to Jr w/o paying tax on it (the way this is accomplished now is through various means like incorporating your assets so you are really not giving any CASH, per se, to your kid....)

Strongly disagree. First your corporate stock ploy is useless. The value of the stock transferred is taxed at it's FMV, same as cash really.

Our original philosophy on taxation in this country, which I agree with, was to tax income at a low rate. This was to ensure that those who worked hard, or smart (or got lucky) enjoyed the fruits of their labor. The second part of that philosophy was to have a strong estate tax to prevent against the kind of dynasties Europe suffered from. No aristocratic classes arising.

If you tax income high, and no estate tax you're creating/protecting the dynasties or aristocracies of those already rich. You're also preventing, thru high income tax, the ability of anyone to rise to that class.

Fern

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The problem is conservatives have been pushing to remove the role of the federal government as referee to our free market system. This has allowed those with power to abuse it wildly and transfer wealth dramatically into the hands of few.

The conservative ideology when it comes to economics is a complete and utter failure. Trickle down economics doesn't work, nor has it ever. We don't need less regulation, we need more because people are inherently greedy and will do whatever they can to amass as much money as possible.

 

[orbster556]

Yep, and that's why the leaders of the Right hate it so desperately, because they lose control of the discussion- it moves outside of the frame they've provided.

To be sure, some of the conservative reaction to the OWS is informed by the unusual and unconventional approach the group has taken. I think, however, your narrative of the conservative reaction being informed solely by its inability to control the discussion seriously overlooks the deep policy and philosophical differences that exist between the OWS crowd and the average conservative.

For the Right, the slogan is the message and the goal wrapped into one. For OWS, the slogan is just a collection point for ideas that will define the solutions. The former is a deeply authoritarian way of doing things, despite the denials, and the latter is anything but.

At some point, the OWS' slogans will have to coalesce into some form of solutions or, at the very least, policy proposals lest it become nothing more than a glorified book club. Moreover, there already exist many interesting academic writers and think tanks that identify and provide exposition of 'interesting ideas'. Identifying and discussing interesting ideas is not at all a novel or arduous task; rather, it the formulation of workable solutions to complex problems that is the more difficult task.

Finally, I am missing the logical leaps you made to classify the conservative approach as authoritarian. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that I agree with your description of the conservative method, I fail to see how it is authoritarian.

 

[orbster556]

Our original philosophy on taxation in this country, which I agree with, was to tax income at a low rate. This was to ensure that those who worked, or smart (or got lucky) enjoyed the fruits of their labor. The second part of that philosophy was to have a strong estate tax to prevent against the kind of dynasties Europe suffered from. No aristocratic classes arising.
Fern

Although this is a compelling rationale for the estate tax (and certainly informed the Democratic Republicans of the Founding and Early Republic periods), I think the operation of the modern estate tax -- promulgated around the time of WWI -- is simply as a means to prevent or limit tax avoidance. If any tax regime lacked one of the big three categories of tax levied against individuals -- income, estate and gift -- the opportunity for filers to game the system by altering the classification of the assets they possessed would be increased highly. Of course, the tax regime would always be able to collect something but such a deficiency in the tax code structure would limit the maximization of tax revenues collected.

Moreover, although a federal estate tax was passed around the turn of the 18th century, it was repealed shortly thereafter and only re-instated when the government needed money (usually to finance wars). To me, at least, this seems to militate against the idea that principal purpose of the estate tax was to serve as a check on the rise of an aristocratic class (although, to be sure, that was a rationale used by proponents of the estate tax).

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

99% of the conservative reaction that I've seen is to demean the protesters as dirty hippies.

You can't expect a movement like this to come out with a clear message. That's not the point of the movement. The point of the movement is to raise awareness in this country to the injustices that are happening by greedy corporations. The goal of OWS is to spawn a movement in this country to get rid of our existing political figures, who are completely corrupted and bought and paid for by corporate America.

We need to take back our country. The first step is to get everyone awake and aware to what is happening to them. Then, we can discuss what to do next.

 

[orbster556]

The problem is conservatives have been pushing to remove the role of the federal government as referee to our free market system.

I forget the venue, but I remember Friedman explaining how in the 17th and early-18th centuries, British customs agents were seen as the most corrupt civil servants the world over. By the beginning of the 19th century -- after the abrogation of the Corn Laws and other measures designed to promote free trade -- British civil servants were regarded as irreproachable and paragons of integrity. The reason for this sea-change in opinion was that the abolition of the Corn Laws limited the influence and control British Customs agents had over imports. With no control or power over imports, there was no need for importers or manufacturers to bribe the civil servants. I think the same line of reasoning applies in modern times, viz. as you give government officials more control over the everyday operations of individuals (whether operating in an individual or incorporated capacity).

people are inherently greedy and will do whatever they can to amass as much money as possible.

Although I was going to write a rather lengthy response, I think an approach that would both more efficient and provide a much more thorough explication of the benefits that accrue to society when individuals are left to pursue their self-interest, I'll simply link to a video of Friedman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GapXLpLoZBs#t=00m51s. I would implore you to pick up Capitalism and Freedom and give it a read before condemning the free enterprise system. It is the rare book wherein the author is able to address complex and difficult questions without inundating the reader with technical minutia or focusing on esoteric issues.


Additionally, I think this small clip might speak to your first point: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lp2kGJASGY#t=07m50s

 

[Patranus]

We should turn the question around. Why ISN'T bribery speech? I mean flat out bribery.

It's a person who is SPEAKING that they want something, and offering money, which is SPEECH, to get it.

"Vote for this bill and I'll give you $100,000." Why ISN'T that speech if money is speech?

"Progressives" flat out say vote for them and he will give you more taxpayer money at the expense of the "rich".

How is that not flat out bribery?

 

[Patranus]

Retard Conservatives in this thread: "Hey you dirty smell hippies, get a job"

There are none, that's the point you retards. Conservatives are really bad at looking at the 'big macro picture'.

Plenty of jobs available in Alabama picking crop and in the military.
Until those positions are 100% filled don't come here bitching about not being able to find a job.

 

[Jhhnn]

Plenty of jobs available in Alabama picking crop and in the military.
Until those positions are 100% filled don't come here bitching about not being able to find a job.

13M jobs picking fruit in Alabama? Who knew?

 

[Patranus]

13M jobs picking fruit in Alabama? Who knew?

Like I said, fill the jobs that are known to be available and once those are 100% filled come back and bitch about there being no jobs.

 

[michal1980]

99% of the conservative reaction that I've seen is to demean the protesters as dirty hippies.

You can't expect a movement like this to come out with a clear message. That's not the point of the movement. The point of the movement is to raise awareness in this country to the injustices that are happening by greedy corporations. The goal of OWS is to spawn a movement in this country to get rid of our existing political figures, who are completely corrupted and bought and paid for by corporate America.

We need to take back our country. The first step is to get everyone awake and aware to what is happening to them. Then, we can discuss what to do next.

A movement to what end? Raise awarness to what end? Take back 'our' country? I'm not a fan of anyone claiming this is 'their' country.

Awake everyone to what is happening to them? Who is this everyone? There are tens millions of content people in the country. Yes there are problems, but so far the OWS has offered no solutions.

I know why they haven't, because then there is nothing to 'attack'. But there is also nothing to defend. The movement stands for what amounts to nothing, other then raising awarness of their grevances.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The point of the movement is to raise awareness in this country to the injustices that are happening by greedy corporations.

Would you please list those "injustices" that OWS has brought to the fore.

Fern

 

[Patranus]

Would you please list those "injustices" that OWS has brought to the fore.

Fern

Didn't you get the memo?

The big bad banks held a gun to their head and made them take out student loans.

 

[Fern]

Are people confusing poor choices and bad judgement for "injustices"?

Anyway, still looking for more info on OWS from their supporters. So far all I'm getting is general anger over the direction of the country. But I don't need them to know that. Heck, that's come up in every poll for the longest time now. Well, I'm also getting that in some vague way it's Wall Street's fault.

Fern

 

[bfdd]

Would you please list those "injustices" that OWS has brought to the fore.

Fern

Lets not forget that all of the "injustices" that we hear bitched about were brought upon mostly by Government. They weren't doing their job and fucked us, yet this the entity we want to help us? I'd probably be a bit more supportive of OWS if they were running around trying to destroy the "establishment" than I am with the idiotic bitching and moaning.

 

[Axon]

As a proponent of a 'real' estate tax, I'd be interested in seeing this info. Pls give us a link confirming your assertion bolded above.

Fern

I suppose you're not familiar with the great Gordon Gekko.