Occupy Wall Street

[LogGrad98]

Why do you assume that "donate" means "money"? Every interview I have read/heard has has talked about contributing to the safety, cleanliness, etc. of the grounds.

The first time this issue came up on NPR the representative from the San Francisco group said they were changing their menu because they couldn't afford to feed the extra people that were not part of the protest without higher donations. So donate can mean more than one thing, but no one has proven that it NEVER means money.

 

[The Pearl]

You realize people already live in Kansas right?

You obviously have not been there.

 

[The Pearl]

I'm confused by what you mean when you say that the money flows to the treasury. By definition:



So in essence, the money we pay in taxes is used by the government for basic necessities. I suppose this does not directly impact the middle-class, but certainly it would help to balance the federal budget.

My point was simply that I think the rich should pay the same amount of taxes as everyone else. Not more, not less.

Finally, there isn't a perception that the middle class is struggling. The middle-class is struggling. How do we fix it? Who knows? But certainly, the plan we have in place now isn't working, and I think most people would agree that it has largely to do with irresponsible investing strategies by the large banks, the massive debt we took on during the Bush and Obama presidencies, and globalization of the world marketplace which has weakened the basic tenants of trickle down ideology.

How do the rich not pay the same amount of taxes? They pay more correct? Do you mean they don't pay enough?


Do you really think that the size of the deficit actually effects the middle class? How so?

 

[LogGrad98]

He is getting at percentages, not actual amounts. It has been proven time and time again that the highest wage earners pay the most money in absolute dollars of federal taxes collected, but on average the top 10% of wage earners pay a lower percentage than the middle class, typically those households between $75k and $200k.

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI equal to or greater than $154,643), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

https://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

This is in reference to dollars collected, not percentage of income or wealth. If you read further down you see how the recession has affected the top wage earners, effectively pushing up their percentage paid as the opportunity for dividend and capital gains income decreases due to economic stagnation.

 

[The Thriller]

The Thriller agrees with the protest = the protestors are above criticism in any way shape or form or he will pull out his almighty stereotypes to slap you.

Got it.

I didn't say that.

Come now, stop acting like a 5 year old.

 

[LogGrad98]

This is the classic, SHOOT THE MESSENGER argument that the right wing is preaching today.

Just ignore the valid concerns over wealth distribution, the lobbying, and how "corporations are people too" so lets let them buy off our government
I say lets give more tax cuts to the rich. Job creation has been just wonderful this past decade because the richies have received so many tax cuts and trickle down economics is working out so well....

Everyone knows that the best government is run by the super wealthy and (minority) in the USA.
You can really see who drinks the foxnews kool-aid on here, just from watching their posts. It's hilarious how tea party peeps are bagging on the OWS protesters. When the exact same arguments, such as changing meals, excluding others, protesting while they "could" be working, not having a clear message, etc could all easily be said about the Tea Party.

No one said any of that either, but you felt the need to add that as your interpretation of what everyone was getting at. You are the king of the stereotype-driven ad hominem argument.

So you just shoot the messengers here about their criticism of how the OWS movement is being run and ignore the validity of that criticism. Pot and kettle ring a bell?

 

[The Thriller]

No one said any of that either, but you felt the need to add that as your interpretation of what everyone was getting at. You are the king of the stereotype-driven ad hominem argument.

So you just shoot the messengers here about their criticism of how the OWS movement is being run and ignore the validity of that criticism. Pot and kettle ring a bell?

I'm sorry, but bringing up how they changed the dinner menu isn't a concern to me. For people like you, it is.

Then again, I'm sure if we look up your previous posts, I'm sure we'll find plenty of criticism on how you thought the tea party movement was done....

 

[sirkickyass]

I'm sorry, but bringing up how they changed the dinner menu isn't a concern to me. For people like you, it is.

Then again, I'm sure if we look up your previous posts, I'm sure we'll find plenty of criticism on how you thought the tea party movement was done....

Haven't you heard? LG is independent. Just ask him.

I know I haven't commented much on the OWS people. Part of this is because I have seriously mixed feelings. I understand why they have a lot of unfocused rage and I think they're probably directing it in the right direction (toward the financial sector generally, since Wall Street here is an idea rather than a physical place which is why you have copycat movements in various places).

That being said part of the reason things are unfocused on is that I think a great many of the individual complaints can be boiled down to the simple "Life didn't turn out the way I thought it would." While I sympathize, mine didn't either, that's not a problem that encompasses a myriad of issues not all of which are financial. Some of it is sociological and a lot of it has to do with the myths we tell each other as a society about the outcomes of our actions and the extent to which we are the masters of our own destinies.

In my mind a major reason the sides keep speaking past each other on this issue can be viewed through the lens of the "myth of hard work." I suspect a large number of OWS people would agree with the idea that part of the reason they're mad enough to occupy something is that they're economically screwed and they feel that they jumped through the hoops and paid the dues that society said they had to in order to at least have a job and a sustainable living without ever getting the "promised" benefit or having that benefit prematurely taken from them. That might be going to college or working 70 hours a week in someone's mailroom hoping to climb the ladder or whatever, but they're demanding that they be paid out on what they perceive as some sort of grand social bargain. We see the other side of this myth from the generally right-wing reaction of "they'd have a job if they spent all that energy trying to get one" or the Herman Cainism about how it's their own fault. On each side the idea that hard work will be rewarded is a guiding principle but the parties are led to different conclusions based upon their perceptions of how hard the OWS protesters have worked for their rewards on the other end. The reality, in my opinion, is that hard work isn't rewarded with good results. Sometimes good results happen to the lazy because of other factors. Other times people work hard all their lives and get screwed for a variety of reasons. But the myth persists, and OWS and it's criticizers aren't challenging those sorts of fundamental assumptions that are driving the conflict.

That's one example and obviously not universal, but I believe similar conditions persist relating to a number of other "ideas" that are really at play in subtle ways.

Anyways, kind of a ramble but that's where my thoughts are on OWS at this point and I haven't seen something similar already posted in this thread. Also, I saw some OWS copycat protesters in Phoenix over the weekend and the most offensive part of them was their lack of quality material. That doesn't exactly win me over. Come up with better chants, tell better jokes, etc.

 

[Scat]

Haven't you heard? LG is independent. Just ask him.

I know I haven't commented much on the OWS people. Part of this is because I have seriously mixed feelings. I understand why they have a lot of unfocused rage and I think they're probably directing it in the right direction (toward the financial sector generally, since Wall Street here is an idea rather than a physical place which is why you have copycat movements in various places).

That being said part of the reason things are unfocused on is that I think a great many of the individual complaints can be boiled down to the simple "Life didn't turn out the way I thought it would." While I sympathize, mine didn't either, that's not a problem that encompasses a myriad of issues not all of which are financial. Some of it is sociological and a lot of it has to do with the myths we tell each other as a society about the outcomes of our actions and the extent to which we are the masters of our own destinies.

In my mind a major reason the sides keep speaking past each other on this issue can be viewed through the lens of the "myth of hard work." I suspect a large number of OWS people would agree with the idea that part of the reason they're mad enough to occupy something is that they're economically screwed and they feel that they jumped through the hoops and paid the dues that society said they had to in order to at least have a job and a sustainable living without ever getting the "promised" benefit or having that benefit prematurely taken from them. That might be going to college or working 70 hours a week in someone's mailroom hoping to climb the ladder or whatever, but they're demanding that they be paid out on what they perceive as some sort of grand social bargain. We see the other side of this myth from the generally right-wing reaction of "they'd have a job if they spent all that energy trying to get one" or the Herman Cainism about how it's their own fault. On each side the idea that hard work will be rewarded is a guiding principle but the parties are led to different conclusions based upon their perceptions of how hard the OWS protesters have worked for their rewards on the other end. The reality, in my opinion, is that hard work isn't rewarded with good results. Sometimes good results happen to the lazy because of other factors. Other times people work hard all their lives and get screwed for a variety of reasons. But the myth persists, and OWS and it's criticizers aren't challenging those sorts of fundamental assumptions that are driving the conflict.

That's one example and obviously not universal, but I believe similar conditions persist relating to a number of other "ideas" that are really at play in subtle ways.

Anyways, kind of a ramble but that's where my thoughts are on OWS at this point and I haven't seen something similar already posted in this thread. Also, I saw some OWS copycat protesters in Phoenix over the weekend and the most offensive part of them was their lack of quality material. That doesn't exactly win me over. Come up with better chants, tell better jokes, etc.

I agree with a lot of what you say here but would add that in listening to a number of people having been interviewed there is this idea that working hard is no longer a requirement. Just being part of society is all that's required to "get yours".

 

[larryselbows]

How do the rich not pay the same amount of taxes? They pay more correct? Do you mean they don't pay enough?

Lograd (sp?) is correct, I mean by percentages (an individual with an income in the top five percent averages around 17% annual taxes on their wealth vs. approximately 33 to 41% due to income taxes for those in the middle class)

Do you really think that the size of the deficit actually effects the middle class? How so?

I do. Increased debt affects inflation and interest rates.

From how I understand it, a portion of the debt that the United States accrues is auctioned as US Treasury bonds. Interestingly, the auction is sort of a "reverse auction" in that the purchasers attain the treasury bonds by guaranteeing a lower interest rate than the previous bidder. Currently, the national bank of China is our greatest purchaser of debt other than the US public.

As our debt increases, we will have to sell more treasury bonds. The problem is, in the past, we have sold treasury bonds mostly to the US public, thus paying interest to US citizens. In today's globalized world, we are paying back many international lenders.

We currently allot 9.5% of total government spending to covering the interest cost on our debt, much of which is leaving the country. In order for us to minimize this problem we have few options. 1) raise taxes 2) raise interest rates 3) cut spending 4) inflate the dollar.

It is going to take some serious economic engineering to solve our problems, especially in a polarized Washington DC, but my best guess is that Geithner favors inflating the dollar, which devalues every bodies savings/securities.

I hope this helps.

 

[larryselbows]

He is getting at percentages, not actual amounts. It has been proven time and time again that the highest wage earners pay the most money in absolute dollars of federal taxes collected, but on average the top 10% of wage earners pay a lower percentage than the middle class, typically those households between $75k and $200k.



https://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

This is in reference to dollars collected, not percentage of income or wealth. If you read further down you see how the recession has affected the top wage earners, effectively pushing up their percentage paid as the opportunity for dividend and capital gains income decreases due to economic stagnation.

While agree that the top ten percent pay the most taxes, I would assert that they still pay far less than the majority of us do by percentage while enjoying a much higher standard of living.

The bottom fifty percent of Americans only account for 2% of the nations total wealth and are taxed at an extremely low rate (they only average an annual income of 22k per year). The wealth distribution of the United States is extremely top heavy as the top ten percent account for 48% of the nations wealth. Therefore it is only logical that the very wealthy pay the most in total taxes, but despite this they still pay a lower rate than the majority of the middle-class.

Is it wrong that the wealthy are taxed at a lower rate than the rest of us? No, not at all, but I would by no means assert that it is a balanced system.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm sorry, but bringing up how they changed the dinner menu isn't a concern to me. For people like you, it is.

Then again, I'm sure if we look up your previous posts, I'm sure we'll find plenty of criticism on how you thought the tea party movement was done....

Care to clarify this stereotype?

I frankly don't remember much discussion about the teaparty on this site, at least since I got more active on Jazz Fanz back in November of last year. If you want to dig that far back, knock yourself out. If you want to get into a discussion about it, feel free to start it up, I am sure there are plenty who would love to rehash it.

 

[LogGrad98]

But as far as the menu goes, you support this movement wholeheartedly with complete disregard to their potential motives? Don't you think the way the little guy, trying to bring attention to the plight of the little guy, would treat the little guy matters?

Also, I never made a judgement call on it. I simply pointed out I found it interesting. NPR made a big deal out of it, mentioning the menu change multiple times over the past couple of weeks. The movement themselves felt the need to issue statements about it. Apparently on a national scale it is a bigger deal than you choose to make of it.

Interestingly enough, I agree with a lot of what kicky said about the movement. Despite his misuse of the term "myriad" this was a good point:

That being said part of the reason things are unfocused on is that I think a great many of the individual complaints can be boiled down to the simple "Life didn't turn out the way I thought it would." While I sympathize, mine didn't either, that's not a problem that encompasses a myriad of issues not all of which are financial. Some of it is sociological and a lot of it has to do with the myths we tell each other as a society about the outcomes of our actions and the extent to which we are the masters of our own destinies.

This was good too:

The reality, in my opinion, is that hard work isn't rewarded with good results. Sometimes good results happen to the lazy because of other factors. Other times people work hard all their lives and get screwed for a variety of reasons. But the myth persists, and OWS and it's criticizers aren't challenging those sorts of fundamental assumptions that are driving the conflict.

Quite frankly I have not spent a lot of time looking into the movement other than what I get daily on NPR and read on other news sources. That is why I haven't made any real statements about the movement in general. From what I have read and heard they lack direction and this takes away from their message. They need better focus and a stronger agenda to win people over.

I still found it interesting they are chanting (over and over and over) that they are the 99%, but they don't want anyone mooching off their high-end buffet. And it is telling of the lack of depth in the movement that this has become an issue that NPR and others have revisited several times. If the menu issue is a bigger deal to the media than the message, then they have some real work to do.

 

[The Pearl]

Lograd (sp?) is correct, I mean by percentages (an individual with an income in the top five percent averages around 17% annual taxes on their wealth vs. approximately 33 to 41% due to income taxes for those in the middle class)

The middle class pays nowhere near 33 to 41% of their income in taxes. Check the link loggrad provided. It is Table 8 under Average Tax Rates 1980-2009. In 2009, the top 1% paid a rate of 24% on their AGI, Those in the 25 to 50% paid 5.56% on their AGI. The bottom 50% paid 1.85% on their AGI. I run into this all the time. People have no idea what taxes everybody else pays and what the actual marginal rates actually are.

The way the tax system is structured it is mathematically impossible for a middle class family to pay 33 to 41% tax rate on their AGI.

 

[One Brow]

Sure, but that ship has sailed. Now, maybe increasing taxes on the "rich" for the purposes of funding a coast to coast infrastructure program? Very interesting. How many of the OWS crowd would be willing to move to Kansas and repair bridges to pay back their 150K loans?

You mean, the bridges in the NorthEast are in good shape? There won't be any high-speed rail built? Revision of our eletrical grid?

I don't know how many of these protesters would be willing to operate heavy machinery, but it seems to me many of them would qualify for the low-level management jobs that would be needed in the building of the infrastructure, or the companies that service the people newly employed by the project. Do you disagree?

 

[The Pearl]

I do. Increased debt affects inflation and interest rates.

How so? You do realize that we are experiencing the highest levels of deficits and the lowest level of rates...ever. Also, as the deficits rose, we have experienced some of the mildest inflation in history?

According to most modern day economic theories, should be impossible.

 

[larryselbows]

The middle class pays nowhere near 33 to 41% of their income in taxes. Check the link loggrad provided. It is Table 8 under Average Tax Rates 1980-2009. In 2009, the top 1% paid a rate of 24% on their AGI, Those in the 25 to 50% paid 5.56% on their AGI. The bottom 50% paid 1.85% on their AGI. I run into this all the time. People have no idea what taxes everybody else pays and what the actual marginal rates actually are.

The way the tax system is structured it is mathematically impossible for a middle class family to pay 33 to 41% tax rate on their AGI.

Table 8 is a narrow description of the taxes that most people pay. It accounts for income taxes but fails to account for FICA and payroll taxes, which folks in the middle class pay at a tax rate from 33 to 41%.

 

[GoJazz]

The middle class pays nowhere near 33 to 41% of their income in taxes. Check the link loggrad provided. It is Table 8 under Average Tax Rates 1980-2009. In 2009, the top 1% paid a rate of 24% on their AGI, Those in the 25 to 50% paid 5.56% on their AGI. The bottom 50% paid 1.85% on their AGI. I run into this all the time. People have no idea what taxes everybody else pays and what the actual marginal rates actually are.

The way the tax system is structured it is mathematically impossible for a middle class family to pay 33 to 41% tax rate on their AGI.

Are you considering all the hidden taxes we pay. For instance, car registration, gas tax, property taxes, sales taxes, ect? This isn't even considering if you are small business owner or have employees.

 

[larryselbows]

How so? You do realize that we are experiencing the highest levels of deficits and the lowest level of rates...ever. Also, as the deficits rose, we have experienced some of the mildest inflation in history?

According to most modern day economic theories, should be impossible.

Which economic theory are you speaking of?

As I understand it, the US treasury bond is widely considered one of the world's safest investments. From the economic slide in 2008 to now, the interest rates of US treasury bonds is a reflection of their demand. Right now, there is little stability in the marketplace, therefore, countries are very likely to purchase our debt as they view it as a safe place to put their money. They will continue to bid for lower and lower interest rates until the economy rebounds, which not unlike a negative feedback, encourages us to borrow more because interest rates are so low.

The danger comes from accruing massive amounts of debt. In doing so, we will probably have to increase taxes to pay off the interest on our borrowed debt. The only problem is that no politician in our country will support raising taxes as it is highly contentious. This leaves us with our most likely option, which Timothy Geithner favors; inflating the dollar. By allowing the dollar to depreciate, it also depreciates the value of our debt and allows us to more easily pay it off. In doing so, however, an individual's, regardless of class, savings and securities depreciate as well. This is not only possible, but probable.

 

[The Pearl]

Table 8 is a narrow description of the taxes that most people pay. It accounts for income taxes but fails to account for FICA and payroll taxes, which folks in the middle class pay at a tax rate from 33 to 41%.

Your portion of the payroll tax is 7.65%. That is for everybody up to the annual ceiling.