Steven
- sjbdallas
- +3 diggs
- -0 / +3
The problem with protests like this is that they don't have a focused demand or issue. They're saying "occupy wall street" but their list of demands read like a list of random DIGG posts rather than a cohesive message. If you want to occupy wall street for something pick one thing to shout about. I've seen 3 or 4 different lists that included things like smashing the wall street bull, truth about 9/11, student loan forgiveness, etc.
Pick one thing, focus on that, then move onto the next one. The movement will grow with each round of demands and protests.
- +11 diggs
- -6 / +17
Aren't these the same corporations that have been hoarding cash for several years now and have also been keeping billions offshore to avoid taxes? All that cash hasn't gotten them to start creating jobs yet has it?
Aren't these the same corporations who keep lobbying congress for more H1B visas claiming that there aren't enough qualified workers in the US? Really? None of the millions of folks out of work right now can't be trained to be a code monkey for microsoft?
Besides, corporations can raise prices all they want, no one has to pay it.
- +9 diggs
- -4 / +13
But isn't the argument about income tax? They're not going to cut or raise social security taxes right? Everyone is stuck with that anyway. I also think its interesting that they keep talking about people who make a million dollars a year as being the target since most of us could never imagine making a million. However, the new tax starts at 200K for individual or 250K for joint. A married couple with good software engineering jobs could make 250K a year and they are far from being millionaires.
>But isn't the argument about income tax?
Not according to many comments I've seen.
The article starts with analyzing million dollar incomes, and it proceeds to analyze 100k incomes, or around that amount. I'm for higher taxes for anyone above the average in this time of need.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
To repeat a point I made earlier on another story:
The top 1% of earners comprise 38% of tax revenue. The top 5% comprise 58%. The top 25% of earners are carrying a whopping 86% of the weight.
What's more, trends show that the bottom 50% of earners not only make up barely 3% of the income tax revenue, but they're portion has actually been shifting lower every year for the past ten years.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
... Interesting if rather off-topic. Those who have more disposable income can afford to pay more. When the economy is in such a bad state, that's not too much to ask, I think. They won't get to buy that second Lamborghini, but a dirt-poor family of four gets to stay in their crappy house.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Show 3 RepliesYour point being? What you described is already happening. The rich have more disposable income so they pay more in tax.
Show 1 ReplyMy point is that they are paying less now than they did over the last 50-70 years. They payed more when the economy was fine. Now that the economy sucks why can't they pay as much as they did when it was all cool? When the country is in need you work more, not less. You give more, not less.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"My point is that they are paying less now than they did over the last 50-70 years. They payed more when the economy was fine. Now that the economy sucks why can't they pay as much as they did when it was all cool? When the country is in need you work more, not less. You give more, not less."
So you place all the burden on the rich? It should be the role of the government to make sure it has mechanisms in place for when the economy goes into the toilet, and indeed thats what most do. When times are good, they bring in a lot of tax revenue, and then when times are bad they get themselves through with the tax previously collected.
Simply linking the tax rate on the rich with the current state of the economy is a pretty s**t way to do things as it would increase the moral hazard. Why try and be fiscally responsible when the risk is carried by the rich. It's similar to what happened in the banking crisis in which a moral hazard situation was created when the government bailed out the banks. On top of that who knows what it might cause to happen? It's very possible that it will have negative consequences. As you know the economy does have its boom and bust cycle. If you increase tax during the recessions, it might cause the rich to somehow defer their income until the tax rate lowers. This could further exacerbate the problem as it would dry up tax revenue during the times when you need it most.
Simply raising the tax on the rich, regardless of whether it's good or bad is much better than taxing them more depending on the state of the economy.
"So you place all the burden on the rich?"
No, I place MORE burden on the rich - not all. Because they can take it. If you have a party of people climbing into the mountains you give the heavier backpacks to people who are stronger.
"When times are good, they bring in a lot of tax revenue, and then when times are bad they get themselves through with the tax previously collected."
Unfortunately that's not how the tax system works. It is year to year, and there is no reserve. In fact we have a huge debt. We have had one for over 100 years, although it got MUCH worse after Reagan.
"Simply linking the tax rate on the rich with the current state of the economy is a pretty s**t way to do things as it would increase the moral hazard."
Nobody is saying that we should just soak the rich for the entire deficit. We need to also cut a lot of stuff. That's obvious, and nobody is denying it. What the majority is denying however is that all of this can be done with just cuts, cuts, cuts. That taxes have to be raised.
"On top of that who knows what it might cause to happen? It's very possible that it will have negative consequences."
History shows us that nothing that catastrophic will happen, since for 50-70 years the tax rate on the richest was much higher. That's why they are called the "Bush tax cuts" - because Bush introduced them.
"If you increase tax during the recessions, it might cause the rich to somehow defer their income until the tax rate lowers."
It's not even increasing the tax rate - it is returning it to what it has been for a long time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"History shows us that nothing that catastrophic will happen, since for 50-70 years the tax rate on the richest was much higher. That's why they are called the "Bush tax cuts" - because Bush introduced them."
Since when in history has the tax rate on the rich been linked to the economic situation? The tax rates may have been high but they were never allowed to fluctuate varyingly from year to year.
"It's not even increasing the tax rate - it is returning it to what it has been for a long time."
No it is increasing relative to the good years. Back when the tax rate was very high, it was at least held more or less constant, that is they didn't change the tax rate to reflect the economic situation. So it would be increasing relative to the good economic times. When I said increase, i meant relative to the good times. As I said "If you increase tax during the recessions". Learn to f**king recognise context, would save you a lot of time making useless irrelevant arguments.
I'm not saying they shouldn't increase the tax on the rich, just saying they shouldn't do something as stupid as allowing it fluctuate from year to year.
"Since when in history has the tax rate on the rich been linked to the economic situation? The tax rates may have been high but they were never allowed to fluctuate varyingly from year to year."
??? I am confused - what are you trying to say or point out? They have been raised and lowered a number of times, for different reasons. The last time I can think of was when Bush was pushing his tax cuts - from what I remember one of the justifications for the tax cuts was the surplus.
"No it is increasing relative to the good years."
Good years for whom? The rich people? Because most other people didn't think those years were that good. For the average American the household income has been pretty much flat for the last 30 years.
And the tax cuts were supposed to be temporary. They just kept getting extended.
"Learn to f**king recognise context, would save you a lot of time making useless irrelevant arguments."
Learn to stop being a f**king dick and people won't dislike you.
"I'm not saying they shouldn't increase the tax on the rich, just saying they shouldn't do something as stupid as allowing it fluctuate from year to year."
Ah, so why didn't you say so? And who even suggested that or argued for it? Is that some sort of strawman argument? The economy is one of the justification for manipulating the tax rate. It has always been so, from the time taxes were invented. Peasants in ancient Egypt probably asked for lower taxes when their year was bad.
The top 50% has 80+% of the wealth. Why shouldn't they pay 80+% of the taxes?
Show 4 RepliesPolitics of envy.
Why doesn't everyone pay the same rate for the same service?
monvalley multimillionaire CEOs today don't make most of their money in salary. They get their pay in stock options. Which they end up paying only 15%. They are milking the system. They drive the stock prices up by shipping jobs overseas and cutting wages and benefits, which destroys the middle class. And you cheer them on all because you have a delusion that your ten grand in stocks is going to make you rich. No sir you are the idiot.
Because that would be tantamount to penalising people for saving money rather than spending it.
Lets you and I both had $50,000 in income after taxes. I spend all my money on consumables and services, things that don't add to my net wealth such as expensive wine and food, and going on trips. You on the other hand decide that you want to save all your money by putting it into a savings account. Would it be fair for the government to come along and tax you on your wealth of $50,000 just because you decided to save?
- +14 diggs
- -4 / +18
That pretty much is what they want to do -- but to address it so directly would set off all kinds of warnings, as it would be seen (rightly so, imo) as an impediment to investing, and people would worry about it upsetting the already rather unsteady market.
Show 1 ReplyAbsolutely, the markets are so fickle these days that announcing tax hikes on investment gains would cause a shock that would cause a drop in the market.
not to mention the media woulds probably spin it as war on wall streetComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Even that still hides the problem: Government is overspending.
If in any accounting scheme secretary indeed pays more taxes - dear President ASK FOR HER TAXES TO BE LOWERED....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sjbdallasOct 21, 2011
Why won't she just tell us what she's wearing?