Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: “In 1992, the top 10th …. controlled 20 times the wealth controlled by the bottom half. By 2010, it was 65 times.” NYT

Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 23, 2012, 9:35 a.m. EST by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

“In 1992, the top tenth of the population controlled 20 times the wealth controlled by the bottom half. By 2010, it was 65 times.” NYT

This talks about wealth verses income they are quite different, the 1% want you to focus on income. The real tragedy is how few Americans can pass anything on to their heirs, while the 1% (and their footmen, you know who you are…) want you to fear economic collapse if those with billions are impeded from establishing their Kingdoms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/to-reduce-inequality-tax-wealth-not-income.html

The bottom line here is that we should reward work not birth.

Here Forbes offers a rebuttal, but offers no solution to the obvious problem that excessive wealth inequality occurring at an increasing rate is unsustainable.

Could it be that Forbes looks forward to the full restoration of Monarchy?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/berniekent/2012/11/20/what-a-wealth-tax-and-lindsay-lohan-have-in-common/

Here CNN covers the story:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/11/21/exp-erin-taxing-the-wealth-to-reduce-inequality-and-avert-fiscal-cliff.cnn?iref=allsearch

Update: here's a good interactive site to explore these topics, from a comment:

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1981&end=2008

192 Comments

192 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Everytime I hear the (R)ich talk about how Obama wants to redistribute the wealth in this country, I think about how hypocritical they are when they have done nothing since Reagan but redistribute the wealth to the top. The facts are indisputable. Wealth inequality and distribution has gone to the top megawealthy. It used to be in the middle class. No more. We need to get our money back.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

And the numbers to back up your argument in this interactive graph.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1981&end=2008

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

thanks I've seen this on here before, maybe one of your posts, I'm going to update to add this, thanks again

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

De nada.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Here! Here!. Let's get our money back!

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

When looking at public policy ask yourself, as a thought experiment, what would a King want and what would peasants?

A King needs a strong army to keep his enemies at bay.

A King needs large prisons and a vast police force to impose his will on his people.

A King needs a united Church to ensure no counter power arises.

The peasants want, food, shelter, health care are you seeing a trend?

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

The (R)ich do not believe in fairness or democracy. You are correct. They believe in dictatorial rule. That is why they love corporate capitalism, because a corporation is their own kingdom they can rule over. They would like government to be that way too, but since it isn't, they have tried to slowly convert it as much as possible to what they want by purchasing politicians and laws that favor them.

One of my favorite quotes by Thomas Jefferson sums it all up:

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, ...Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still, and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Alas you have discovered my secret; I draw much of my material from the Founding Fathers, esp. Jefferson. I try to speak in an MTV voice but there is nothing new in what I say.

This is indeed the choice we have Monarchy or Democracy, The Corporation is ruled through Monarchy, the Union through Democracy, The Monarch seeks to impose His will, His religion, and to secure the right of His offspring to rule above all other things, the Democrat seeks to provide security for the people and opportunity for their offspring even at the expense of his own.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Yes, and my personal opinion is that the juxtaposition of dictatorial rule in the Private sector via Corporate Capitalism against the (somewhat) democratic rule of the Public sector creates a kind of collective psychological schism in the American psyche. After all, people are taught from childhood in this country that we are free to govern ourselves through representatives that we elect, but then when we go to work we are subjected to corporate dictatorship where we have no voice or democratic input (usually). So this is the main reason why I favor the destruction of corporate capitalism to be replaced with worker-owned cooperative socialism. You would then have democracy in both the workplace and government, instead of this collective split between democracy and dictatorship that we have now.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3311) 1 year ago

Perhaps a multi-year phase-out of mortgage interest deduction in lieu of the wealth tax is better. The tax deduction of mortgage interest often distorted the true cost of assuming a mortgage leading to over-expenditure that culminated in the mortgage debt crisis. By and large, the people who have the ability to contract debt as big mortgages are NOT poor folks. They either understand leverage or do not really grasp the true cost of a mortgage. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction will discourage both kinds of behaviors and lead to a stabler economy.

The record of the U.S. tax-subsidizing mortgages is not good because we do not have vastly higher home-ownership rate than countries in which governments stay out of mortgages. We only managed to produce the greatest financial crash since the Great Depression -- nothing to brag about.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I think health care has an even larger impact on the economy overall, if we are to look at how successful countries handle that I'm all for it. If we had a single payer health care system it would reduce a lot of costs across the board.

I think compared to other things like health care we actually stand up pretty well in home ownership, so I would not address the mortgage interest before single payer, if doing as well as others is the goal.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Why am I not free to leave my money to whom ever I want? To my children, or the local society for the preservation of concrete table art. Why the constant attack on liberty?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Who says you can't leave your money to whom you want?

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I do, if it's over 5 million.

I'll say it and I'll defend it, don't know if it's the "right" thing to do, but it's the necessary thing.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Can we leave it to whom we want and submit to a heavy tax?

[+] -4 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

given the hole we're in, my starting point is first 5 million tax free after that 99% till the debt is paid, and the rest you do with as you please, for some that would still be 50 million dollars, not bad for a life's work.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Doesn't sound as bad as I thought. I was thinking of a less heavy tax, but I wouldn't argue with your approach.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Once liberty is stolen from your neighbor it is just a matter of time before they come for yours. $ 5kk today, $ 5k tomorrow, eventually, fifty bucks.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well we'll just have to be diligent! That a 99% tax rate might spread from $5million down to $50 is ridiculous. And clearly not a valid concern.

It would never happen. So I suggest we should not submit to that bit of ridiculous fear mongering.

Tax the rich.! cut taxes for workers!

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Freedom is the ability to do what you want with your own property.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

I never liked this silly cliche, but in this case I believe it is apt. "Freedom is not free." Pay up cheapskate.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

It is apparently free if you're a loafer, but not if you decide to work for a living.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

i work for a living; i just believe there is more to life than money. i don't have a problem paying taxes. there are more pressing concerns in life than whether i get to keep a quarter out of every dollar i make. You wealth worshipers make the whole idea of being wealthy seem cheap and unfulfilling. All the bull shit in the world and you make a federal case over a quarter. If you don't like paying so much then why do you spend your time making so much? I really believe our current tax system is poetic justice.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

"If you don't like paying so much then why do you spend your time making so much? "

Exactly my point.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"loafer"? You mean lazy, do nothing 1% execs, who sit on their fat assess, adding nothing to the economy and simply soak up obscenely large unearned compensation.

Those loafers?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The 1% execs only earn what others voluntarily agree to pay them. Among the freedoms that we enjoy stupidity is an unfortunate and ubiquitous constituent.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"others"? You mean other execs! LOL

"stupidity" indeed! Let the workers decide! See how quick the workers start getting a fair living wage.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Others? In a private or publicly traded corp others are the people that authorize salaries (typically the owners of a corp or their designated board members). If they make bad decisions they lose money.

On the other hand, folks that dole out Gov salaries have no skin in the game.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah but execs hooking up their exec friends is clearly a conflict of interest. In the end they make up any shortfall by cutting wages/benefits of our fellow decent hard working Americans!

That ain't a govt responsibility. Maybe the govt (on behalf of the working people) should impose an exec salary cap when workers aren't adequately compensated.

And NO govt worker has a salary of 10's of million (like many execs) I assure you.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

How many US execs do you suspect make 10"s of millions? 50? 150?

And if they make millions and do a crappy job the owners of the company lose money and go out of business.

The Gov on the other hand can spend $ trillions, produce a crappy product, provide lousy service, and stay in business forever (or what seems like forever).

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

How many? Too many.

They can do no job and the company can trudge along. And sometimes they do a crappy job and they get a repub bail out (citibank) Or they do a crappy job and fix corp profit shortfalls by blaming workers.

You're defense of the obscenely wasteful exec compensation is instructive about your leanings (for the 1%, against the 99%?)

The govt has real oversight through voting and their will always be a wing against govt spending. That keeps the sending down better than anything in business. And govt provides services better than the private sector because they don't have to concern themselves with profit, obscenely high exec salaries, advertizing, lobbying and such.

[-] -1 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

True.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

As long as you get a permit.

Sorry this is a nation of laws and we believe in taxing inheritance, I propose we increase that particular tax.

But we are still as free as ever.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You become less free every day. The bigger Gov gets the less freedom you have, and the Gov needs your money to grow.

There is a simple test for liberty: are there fewer laws today then there were 50 years ago?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Kinda simplistic though huh? I believe we have great changes to make to get our freedom back. Cameras everywhere, stop n frisk, warrentless wiretaps, airport patdowns, patriot act, indef detention, and so on. For me it is mostly the fear mongering conservative ideology that has created these violations.

You just sound like another run of the mill single minded "govt too big, tea party extremist" I want a small govt but I know it is actual laws that matter.

If you truly want a smaller govt you would be complaining about the fastest growing part of our govt. The military. I support cutting that in half. We'll still be biggest military on the planet.

So smaller govt? I agree (cut military 50%) Do you?

More Freedom? repeal right wing rights violations. You agree?

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If the right wing is the only problem why did Obama re-up the Patriot Act, fail to close Gitmo, increase airport security, and triple the number of video surveillance points.

It is not about right or left wing it is about the few in the Fed Gov (and Gov in general) imposing their will on the many.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Pres Obama and some dems failed profoundly. They must be denounced, and pressured to stop betraying progressive principles.

That does not change the FACT that all these rights violations are written by and proudly supported by right wing extremists. Nor does it change the reality that the only ones (ron paul excepted) speaking out against these violations are progressives!

To finally repeal these violations we must identify, & denounce those politicians who are spewing the fear mongering propaganda of the 'war on terror' in order to scare the population into acquiescing and staying silent and therefore support these rights violations.

Call it Right/Left, Repub/Dem, Conservative/Progressive. I don't care what label we apply. Some Dems always fail and support bad conservative policy. Bad conservative policy cannot succeed without them. Some pols are bought off, some have no integrity and fear losing reelection.

Don't matter.

Get in the street! Protest all pols (R/L) for repeal of these rights violations. Identify , & Denounce all fear mongering pols who spew the 'war on terror' anti muslim propaganda.

"It's the only way to be sure"

Ya with us?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The only way to stop them is to take away their power. The only way to take away their power is to cut off the money supply.

If you give them the power to rule over you they will. You may not like the rules (as you delineate above) but will be stuck with them.

Cut taxes and eliminate their ability to borrow.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

LOL. For you the answer is only ever cut taxes/small govt.

I support cutting taxes for the working class, and cutting the military by 50%.

Hows that? You with us?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

"Who knows.? Why? $200k fam of 4? I'm flexible. What do you think?"

Sounds great. Today if you make $200k you are paying roughly 1/2 in taxes (all taxes). That is outrageous. Cut it to 10 % (the same that God demanded). That should do it.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

God? I'm an atheist.

I support a low tax rate for lower income. What the number is I can't say.

10% sounds fine for the lowest income people who do not qualify for EITC. Maybe not the highest ($200k) income.

But those are just details.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

That's a good start.

BTW, how do you define the top end income of the "working class"?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Who knows.? Why? $200k fam of 4?

I'm flexible. What do you think?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Yes, lets reduce government.

There's far too many States, all with their own expensive, conflicting laws and such.

All those redundant, expensive court systems.

Silly!!

Let's reduce the number of states for the good of industry!!!

For the good of profit!!!

Almighty profit, lets reduce government.

All those micro tyrannies!! 50 of them!!

This must be made smaller!!

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The US Federal Gov is nearly twice the size as all of the State and Local Govs combined. Local Govs are more efficient than the Feds as well as better in tune with the needs of the people.

The people are almost always better served by local Gov.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Perhaps, but they are SO inefficient, so many useless, conflicting laws and regulations.........All those added taxes. 50 more constitutions to ignore and co-opt.

So easy and cheap to corrupt too, which, I would guess, is why you want to keep all 50 of them........such a useless, divisive waste.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Local Govs are far more efficient and sensitive to regional needs than the Fed Gov. That is why the Fed Gov was created with limited powers and specific duties.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That may, or may not have been true almost 200 years ago, it is however not true today.

All the cost of those conflicting and confusing laws! 50 sets of them!!!

EXPENSIVE!!

The cost of all those redundant court systems!!!

EXPENSIVE!!!

The cost of redundant police and fire departments!!!

EXPENSIVE!!!!!

The cost of under performing states like Mississippi on the more efficient states!

EXPENSIVE!!!

Not to mention the cost to commerce of all the labyrinths of regulations.

Not to mention all 50 of the states have representatives that need to be paid.

REDUNDANT!!!

EXPENSIVE!!!

YES!

Reduce government, by reducing the number of states!!

It's the most efficient way forward!!

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If it is so expensive why does the Fed Gov spend two times the total sending of the combined State, Local, and County Govs of all 50 States.

The Fed Gov is the problem, not the local Gov. You can walk down to the mayors office in your town and have a chat with the person that spends your money. Try that in Washington.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You're repeating yourself.

For years many of my federal tax dollars went to under performing states like Mississippi.

In my State our current tyrant had to usurp legally elected officials, to get a golf course built for election contributors.

Yes, yes. It's so much cheaper and easier to corrupt local governments.

Besides, you picked but one point and I provided you with many.

Reduce government by all means, and the best, cheapest, most efficient way is to reduce the number of states, to eliminate redundancy, and conflictual regulations..

PS: Good luck getting a sit down with the Mayor of my city, let alone Bloomberg.

.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Very true. Freedom is also the people within a land deciding their own form and extent of government. States or localities wishing to secede should do so and remove the heavy hand of federal government that interferes with their well being.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Freedom is not the people within a land deciding the extent of Gov in so far as it infringes on the liberties of the individual.

Individual liberty is a fundamental right not granted by governments but belongs to us by our status as human beings.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Individual liberty is the freedom of a person to choose. Many individuals will often mutually consent to give up a portion of their liberty in exchange for the greater benefit afforded by a fair and impartial government.

When that government becomes unfair and impartial, the people also have an inalienable right to overthrow it and replace it with one of their own choice, in concert with as many or as few people who also agree to consent to the new form of government.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I prefer this authentic quote from Jefferson's first inaugural.

"a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities (great happiness)."

It is unusual to see this quote from T.J. in this forum.

What is your interpretation of "... shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement"?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

That a government should not interfere in personal and business affairs, unless one has an unfair economic or political advantage over another.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

That a government should not interfere in personal and business affairs, unless one has an unfair economic or political advantage over another.

Fair? There is little in economics that is fair, in fact, economics is the study of just how unfair the generation of wealth can be. I agree with you however about political advantage. There should be none. Gov should stay out of business and business should stay out of Gov.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Jefferson's quote is fraudulent. Be careful of what you accept as truth. http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-will-cease-to-exist-quotation

So do you agree with the sentiment if not the source?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I prefer this authentic quote from Jefferson's first inaugural.

"a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities (great happiness)."

How we decipher the phrase "and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." is what separates us. You say the fruit of labor the wealthy have earned should belong to them. I say that the fruit of labor should belong to all who labor for it, and be fairly divided between them so that all may possess great happiness.

http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2186/default.asp

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

"In a Democracy, the majority do in fact force their will on the minority and take their liberty. If that minority truly has liberty, then they have the choice to break free from the oppression of the majority and form their own government."

Democracy according to T Jefferson:

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Jefferson's quote is fraudulent. Be careful of what you accept as truth.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-will-cease-to-exist-quotation

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Did you find that quote on CATO's site?

Sounds more like something Maggy would have said to Reagan.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Individuals may choose to surrender their liberty, but may not force others to surrender theirs.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

In a Democracy, the majority do in fact force their will on the minority and take their liberty. If that minority truly has liberty, then they have the choice to break free from the oppression of the majority and form their own government.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

money is not freedom no matter how many think tanks say it is

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If you don't want to consider the opinions of thinking people today how about:

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities."

T. Jefferson

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Jefferson was a huge fan of the inheritance tax he thought it should be high enough to protect the democracy from undue influence, of course Jefferson didn't have corporations like we do today in those days they dissolved them completely after they had done their job, I suppose if we went back to that, stopped the whole ideal of corporations as no going these just created to make profits that runs against most everything Jefferson ever said. I guess if you want to do that, dissolve all the corporation I'll listen but I think it might cause some trouble at this point.

Here's a cute video that explains it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5kHACjrdEY&list=SP77CE8943362CB9B0&index=2&feature=plpp_video

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

What is the goal of a business?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

define "business"

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The goal of a business is to make money.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Business needs to be told they also must meet a goal of basic treatment of workers, loyalty to workers and the community must become a priority.

We the people must learn to organize enough to pressure business to not outsource and to force business to pay a living wage and provide good benefits, and safe working environment.

Strikes & boycotts must grow, That iswhere the people have unmatched power.

Agree?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Agree? Not at all.

You are trying to make a dog fly. You can try to make the dog fly. Push it out of a tree and try. But you will probably kill the dog.

Why do you force a business to, for example, provide benefits for its employees? Why don't you pay for their benefits (I guess you actually soon may)? You want to force one group of people (people that risk their life savings to start a business) to provide healthcare while you sit back and pay nothing for them. This is the old story of person A and B agreeing to help person C with money they take from person D.

A business is trying to make money. Any tax (like a forced employee benefit) is a business expense. The business makes money by charging more for their product or service than it costs to produce and sell. If you tax them they add that cost to price of their product. This is a hidden tax on the consumer. If you tax them too much (beyond what the consumer can bear) the business will fail and the supply of the good or service will decline. The consumer gets screwed again.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They can also take a little less profit instead of raising prices.

Right?

The workers also sacrifice to build that business. They should have a stake. Maybe shares. And the business has a stake in a stable workforce. They benefit from low turnover.

Some business provide this without raising prices too much (costco, best buy, others)

It can be done. Don't believe the hype, or the threats from business that they will raise prices, or fire people.

We the people can force the change that benefits the 99%.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I'm not specifically saying "govt edict" I'm saying the people must come together through strikes, protests, & boycotts to tell these corps what kind of behavior we expect. Is that ok with you?

Of course I am ok with it; if you think it will help. You may however catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Why do corps give benefits? To attract and retain the best employees.

Which corps are the most successful? The ones with the best employees.

What do successful corps do? Make profits.

What is the best way to get good benefits for employees? Help businesses prosper and make profits. Everybody wins (and, BTW, get rid of corp taxes, they hurt everybody).

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Increase tax on the largest corps, cut taxes for small business.

Honey has been tried for decades.

We can look back historically at the honey decades: (last 40 years) when the decent hard working Americans have fallen behind and the vinegar years: (1900's, & 1930'- '60's) When workers got all the great benefits we all enjoy, and the American economy did best ('50's & '60's).

Into the streets, Protests, strikes, & boycotts. This is the power of the people that we must renew. They've taken our govt, our media, our wealth. We want it back. NOW! We've been nice too long.

Break out the vinegar! And get ready to swat some flies. Occupy has risen!

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

They can also take a little less profit instead of raising prices. Right?

Do you want other people to tell you how much money you earn?

But you miss the point.

People will invest in businesses that they believe will make money. The amount of money they expect to make helps determine which businesses to select. If by Gov edict you cut the profit of a thing you will get less of that thing.

If you doubt this look at what price controls did to the housing supply in NYC (or anyplace else price controls were used).

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Housing market did much better than the rest of the country so I don't know what problem you have with that.

I'm not specifically saying "govt edict" I'm saying the people must come together through strikes, protests, & boycotts to tell these corps what kind of behavior we expect.

Is that ok with you?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

No. You're mostly wrong.

That's the goal of a counterfeiter, and even they are more honest and hard working than Wallstreet..

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

then why did you ask?

that's a good reason not to let them get too big

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Is a $1 billion business with 1 million share holders worse than a $1 million business with 10 share holders?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

A 100 billion dollar business is just too damn big no matter how you cut it up, because there's always one guy at the top calling the shots. If you ever owned a share you would know that.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You will find the word admire absent the text. The word effective is used because it is accurate.

The problem with finding a good King is finding a good king. It is a very risky task. The more money you send to Washington the more Monarchical they become; as evidenced by the following dynasties: Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Gore, the list goes on.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

But I'm sure your child would be different...

None of those were born to power like those that inherit wealth they were voted in, of course those that want the return of Monarchy like yourself would not like powerful elected people. (except maybe Bush jr., one could make the case)

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

A benevolent King can be both just and effective. Much more effective than a committee, or a Senate, or a Parliament. That is why businesses rarely have executives with joint powers.

Why does the US have an Executive with influence over $ trillions? If he does a crappy job he gets sacked, just like the lousy CEO.

No, the best regulator of the size of a big company is an agile, risk-taking, and hungry small company competitor. Just ask Xerox the story of Apple.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I am not surprised that you admire the Kingdom as a model cons are all Monarchist at heart, getting rid of a crappy CEO is almost as hard as getting rid of a crappy tax cut, ever try to get rid of a tax cut that didn't do it's job? We're trying to now, let's see now it goes.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Freedom is the ability to do what you want with your own property.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

freedom is a lot more than than just property that's what you cons don't seem to understand, money is just a scorecard and right now the game is no fun to watch or play, we need to tweak these rules so that more people have more money, and a few people have less, and it's not taking away anybody's rights to do that, so get over it, the longer we put this off the harder and more drastic it will be

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The right to own property is just one of the freedoms that we enjoy as human beings including the rights to life and expression. These rights belong to us, are not granted by Gov, and may not be taken by force by others be they the majority, the minority, or simply the more powerful among us.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

OK so I got to clause 25 or so didn't see a damn thing about money, so what the hell are you talking about?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Your house, your car, your wedding ring, your money, your copy of Das Kapital; they are all your property. Your have the right to own them. It is a human right not granted by any Gov. It is yours because you are a human being. Don't let other people take away your rights.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

yeah I know you're all into property rights, but why are you citing material that does not support your position, what about the right to food and health care?

I suppose your right to your property supersedes those?

You cling to a Royal concept that simply does not exist, except in the minds of those who wish to rule others.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You don't have a right to take other people's food, health care, or other property.

I don't however believe all rights are equal. The right to life is primary, followed by liberty.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Do you believe in a right to healthcare? If a poor person walks in ER do they have the right to treatment? (right to life?)

Do you support letting the poor starve to death? (right to life?)

Do you support the death penalty? (right to life?)

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

"In America we believe in majority rule,"

Suppose the majority wants to make slaves out of people who are left handed. Are you ok with that majority rule?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Why was your last comment removed. Were you bad?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I would fight that majority decision just as we fought and beat the shit out of the traitorous confederate slave holders even though the majority of the country was racist.

See how that works?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

OMG!!

The quote monkey strikes again!!

Like I forgot what I said, or that you really have nothing of note to add.

It still enslaves left handers, who often have a shortened life span because of it.

Supply and demand is more often than not a manipulated condition.

They do the same fucking thing to the disabled.

Only because the can.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Corporations already do this by not producing ambidextrous tools.

If they make them at all, they charge the lefties more money for the same tool in a mirror image.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Shooz: "Corporations already do this by not producing ambidextrous tools. If they make them at all, they charge the lefties more money for the same tool in a mirror image."

Supply and demand. Things that are plentiful tend to cost less than things that are rare. Only 11% of us are left handed.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So it is right to care a poor person in need. Well in America we have decided as a community that in fact we want to care for the poor who go to the ER. That is a majority rule kinda thing. Some may disagree. But they choose to live in a majority rule country whose majority has decided it is wrong to not provide care to the poor. Do you agree with that majority decision? Do you believe in majority rule even if the majority decision isn't to your liking?

Response: I believe that it is wrong for the majority to infringe on the rights of the minority. It is wrong for person A and person B to agree to take money from person C to benefit person D.

If you keep making ERs pay to help poor people without compensation you will soon have no more ERs (in fact it is already happening).

http://www.lhj.com/health/family/kids/danger-at-the-emergency-room/?page=2

http://www.acep.org/Content.aspx?id=30308

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

In America we believe in majority rule, and we believe in providing healthcare to those in need regardless of ability to pay.

You are in direct opposition to 2 important elements of what makes us great.

But you have the ability to organize and try to persuade a majority to let people die instead of providing healthcare regardless of ability to pay.

So somehow the right to life does not apply to these people? Why? because they are poor? because their lives might cost you money.?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The death penalty as it is applied in the US is immoral and an affront to humanity. It should be outlawed.

We let 4 million people world wide starve to death every year while sending $ 46 billion in the US alone on our dogs and cats.

The Gov has no responsibility to feed, clothe, shelter, and heal our fellow man, you and I do.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The government is the peoples organization point - the point where society/PEOPLE pool resources and help one another - at least that is what government is supposed to be. Local/township to area/state to national/Federal.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So what happens to a poor person who goes to the ER? kick him out? Let him die? Would that be a right to death?

Do you agree with the Catholic church that it is not a sin to steal food if you are starving?

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So what happens to a poor person who goes to the ER? kick him out? Let him die? Would that be a right to death?

Response: There is a difference between you doing the right thing (taking care of the poor person in the ER) and forcing your neighbor to do the right thing.

Do you agree with the Catholic church that it is not a sin to steal food if you are starving?

Response: Not sure about sin, but it is wrong to infringe the rights of others. You have a moral obligation to steal food to save your life if you are starving. However you may, without moral failing, sacrifice your life by taking that stolen food and using it to feed a starving child.

If however you steal food from a starving child then you knowingly commit an unjust killing. That is immoral.

Killing a human being is only morally justifiable if it is the only way to prevent an unjust killing. Life is the primary human right.

Morality, like human rights, is subject to opinion; but like people, not all opinions are equal.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So it is right to care a poor person in need. Well in America we have decided as a community that in fact we want to care for the poor who go to the ER.

That is a majority rule kinda thing. Some may disagree. But they choose to live in a majority rule country whose majority has decided it is wrong to not provide care to the poor.

Do you agree with that majority decision? Do you believe in majority rule even if the majority decision isn't to your liking?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

no more so than the Founding Fathers had a right to take America from the King, I suppose..

too bad Bush didn't think them Iraqis had a right to life we wouldn't have so debt

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

King George once owned America, thank God our Founding Fathers didn't believe the shit you do.

"The Crown invested billions of today’s dollars and hundreds of years into the colonies. The colonies pasted down through the family like any other trust fund asset. There is no doubt that legally. Internationally recognized, King George owned America. The Founding Fathers stole this country from him; they had some crazy idea that because they had built this country with their sweat and blood, they had more right to it than the person who had made it all possible with billions in investment, imagine that. Well I think we might be getting close to needing another revolution."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-america-revolution-was-the-largest-act-of-weal/

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

$8,000 property tax? you are blessed indeed, quit your bitchin' and thank your lucky stars

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Must be in a very nice place to live, or you should sell because I would think the appraisal would have to be over half a million.

Is there some connection between high property tax and high property values? Could be.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Your home seems to be worth about two and half times what a similar house here in red AZ would be, where the mil is a bit lower I would think. I don't know where you guys are at with schools and all but you know what they say around here "thank god for Mississippi", if you know what I mean.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Why did the founding fathers risk their fortunes (they were nearly all very wealthy), their families, their reputations, and the gallows to wage war against one of the most powerful nations on the planet?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

To protect their wealth. It was all about taxation, remember?

Edmund Morgan referred to it as a, "struggle for office and power between members of an upper class."

Howard Zinn concluded:

It seems that the rebellion against British rule allowed a certain group of the colonial elite to replace those loyal to England, give some benefits to small landholders, and leave poor white working people and tenant farmers in very much their old situation.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnkin5.html

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

And you believe that? How much of your money would you surrender to avoid death, or the death of your family? The revolutionaries risked certain death, and you believe they did it for money?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Of course. Do you think that we invaded Iraq to liberate people and promote democracy? You should read Howard Zinn's book some time.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

That was an illegal oil war.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Yes, that was my point.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I would not risk the lives of my family for every cent I have, or will ever have.

How much of your money would you surrender to avoid death, or the death of your family?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Prior to the revolution American Colonists were actually taxed at quite a low rate.

The revolution was not about taxes. In fact the wealthy leaders of the revolution stood to lose a lot more money than they would have if they just paid the Kings due.

They fought the revolution for one overwhelming reason.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1594/percentagewise-were-taxes-greater-in-the-old-days-or-now

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

How much are they asking, and when do the negotiations start?

Oh, yeah.....who's asking?

Seems to me, we are already surrendering a Planet to their profit illness.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

How much of your money would you surrender to avoid death, or the death of your family?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

How hard would you fight to stop an empire thousands of miles away from taking your money? "No taxation without representation."

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I guess they didn't buy into the bullshit that so many Americans today have, the bullshit that those born to wealth somehow deserve it, that holding faith with the dead is more important than taking care of the living, so they threw the well born bitches out.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

They risked everything, their lives, the lives of their families, their wealth, their fortunes, and their reputations for one thing.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

all to purge us of the curse of inherited power and now we have fallen victim to it again....just traded one bunch of Royals for another

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

dead people got all the "freedom" in the world, but no-body gets to make themselves King in America, power beyond the grave is the power of Kings

[+] -5 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

wait, you aint seen nothing yet, obama & co are going to try an make a play to confiscate all 401K and IRA's , they will be the ones to decide when( if) you get YOUR money. We the People has become WE THE GOVT.

[-] 0 points by elf3 (2735) 1 year ago

Welcome to the new American Aristocracy

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

morning elf, all we got to do to stop it is kill the GOP, that's a price I'm willing to pay

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I agree, Ignorance is a big problem. I wish people weren't bombarded with the fear mongering surrounding the phony "fiscal cliff". I wish we never fell for the damaging voodoo economics of trickle down economics 30 years ago. I wish we never believed the anti labor lies and allowed our unions to be busted, which contributed to our 3 decades long stagnant wages.

This might be "pretty left wing" but I don't consider it spin. I am pretty left wing progressive. I believe progressive solutions are best to resolve our problems, all of which I believe have been created by conservative policies.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

5000 dollars tax on a million dollar estate wealth tax, according to the article, for the second half million dollars.

American household wealth totaled more than $58 trillion in 2010. A flat wealth tax of just 1.5 percent on financial assets and other wealth like housing, cars and business ownership would have been more than enough to replace all the revenue of the income, estate and gift taxes, which amounted to about $833 billion after refunds. Brackets of, say, zero percent up to $500,000 in wealth, 1 percent for wealth between $500,000 and $1 million, and 2 percent for wealth above $1 million would probably have done the trick as well.

These tax rates would garner a small portion of the extra wealth America’s richest families could expect to accrue simply by investing what they already had. The rates would also be enough to slow — if not reverse — the increase in inequality. To see how the wealth tax would work, consider a family with $500,000 in wealth and $200,000 in annual income. Right now, they might pay $50,000 in federal income tax. With the wealth tax brackets described above, they would pay nothing. On the other hand, a family with $4 million in wealth and $200,000 in annual income would owe $65,000. Most families that depend on their wealth for their income would pay more, and most that depend on their earnings would pay less.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/11/news/economy/wealth-net-worth/index.html

median household saw its net worth drop to $57,000

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You are applying some extreme example (that is not provable) to the whole country.

The vast majority of people struggling are doing so through no fault of their own. And the people who created the economic crash have done nothing to contribute to the recovery.

They are perfectly happy leaving workers to take the brunt of the pain, and in fact the wealthiest have fought tooth and nail to avoid any fair contribution.

They go even as far as to 'blame the victim' by focusing on some irrelevant exception of 1 irresponsible borrower. It's dishonest. disgusting.

Banksters screwed up these loans, and created the unemployment crises that created the rest of the mtg crises.

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

Your co workers are a menace to your own company's survival. People who make a lot and still go way into debt are constantly angling for ways to squeeze their source of income for more and more.

This same sad analogy can apply to the pension programs of many major cities.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

Then it sounds like there might be conflicting data, unless the ongoing debt is somehow related to family.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

Doesn't the scenario you describe tend to make the argument of owner suppression of workers less valid since even when paid well, people seem to go into debt regardless?

It seems as if the potential for having gratitude by having a job near home does not lend itself to an equal amount of humility in some situations.

I'm not saying this about you, just about the situation you describe.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You would pay much less under the NYT system than you do now as the first $500,000 would pay nothing and then only 1% of $500,000 rather than the 35% marginal rate you face now.

Yes you would be paying more than your co-workers, but then you have a lot more to protect than they do, don't you want to make sure your savings mean something?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Stop whining, pay your fair share, & stop spewing this non sense fantasy about the conveniently perfect irresponsible co worker.

It ain't believable. And it ain't a fair representation of the which people are affected and how they are affected.

I don't believe you.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

You're paying 30% out of your abundance. Half of American workers are paying 20% out of their necessity.

It's more painful to cut muscle than fat.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

"Necessity" A person making $7.25 an hour paying 17% of his income in taxes. At this income level he has to choose between food, medical care, housing, clothing, utilities, transportation, and education. He can't afford what most consider basic necessities so he has to drop some in order to pay for others.

The overall tax rate including Federal, state, local, payroll, sales, excise, and property taxes are much higher than you've been told. That 47% of people not paying Federal tax is completely misleading. Most of those are seniors or are making Walmart level wages.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-taxes-americans-really-pay-in-two-graphs/2012/04/16/gIQA6o4yLT_blog.html

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The answer can be boiled down to what you value. Either you own economic health is all that matters or the health of society as a whole. If the economic body of a nation diverts all of it's resources to the head, and none to the rest of the body, the head in it's euphoria won't notice that the rest of the body is collapsing from underneath until both fall. It nearly happened in 2008, we are still on both knees, and it will likely occur again very soon unless we make necessary changes.

The choice is either health for the entire body, or economic collapse and revolution.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

the point of the piece is that taxing wealth would be more fair

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I have no interest in your unprovable situation. Your comments offer extreme examples that conveniently place the blame on the decent hard working Americans who have victimized by the irresponsible, reckless, even criminal banksters.

I stand with the decent hard working Americans, while you stand against us

Stop advocating for the wealthy. They have lobbyists to rig the laws against us, accountants to evade their fairshare of taxes, and lawyers to get off when they get caught.

Advocate for your own class. They need you more.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So we should not tax the wealthy because in years to come it will be expanded to non wealthy? Well we should watch and prevent that. Ifother taxes have crept into the non wealthy, let's fix that by cutting thosetaxes for the working class, & raising it on the wealthy.

So we shouldn't raise taxes on the wealthy because they have been frugal? LOL. that's rich <---- no pun intended. Sorry rich is rich. You gotta pay your fair share. Lotsa working class people are frugal, they still gotta pay taxes. Sorry. That's weak.

We should not raise taxes on the wealthy because some high paid workers are irresponsible and they wouldn't be hit by the wealthy tax increase. Whaaaaaat? If they ain't wealthy that is their punishent. This is small % of people. Most people are responsible enough. And when they aren't they suffer as a result. Another weak reason. Sorry. Doesn't fly.

We shouldn't raise taxes on the wealthy because they will hide money/evade taxes, move out of America.? That sounds like a threat. If they are so traitorous that they would leave America we should pass a penalty and take a big chunk of the money they made in this great nation. If they seek to hide money/evade taxes (as they do now) We must close the loopholes/shelters and prosecute the criminals.

You have lotsa reasons NOT to raise taxes on the wealthy. All weak. Sorry. It was wealthy people (not all) who crashed the economy, and it's the wealthy who have done little to nothing to contribute to the recovery.

The recession pain/burden has been carried only by the working class who did not create the recession.

Sorry, time to pay the piper.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"responsibility fine"? what is that.?

And I reject the fear mongering that "the rich will flee or hide money/evade taxes more", so we better not raise their taxes. Those are threats. And we don't submit to threats.

We will just have to deal with those dishonorable traitors.

Ain't no thang! Raise there fuckin taxes!

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We must be dilligent in preventing the 'creep' you suggest (as a fear tactic) will get the middle class.

I support taxing the wealthy, & eliminating all their loopholes, shelters & so forth.

I would submit to you that taxes on the working class should be called responsibility tax since the working class are responsible for creating the wealth & jobs in this nation. The wealthy just sit on their fat, greedy, selfish, do nothing asses, & live off the hard work of others, investment income, and build nothing. Very IRRESPONSIBILE.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You might want to re-read the piece, it spoke of a phase in period, perhaps that's what you are referring to.

In general though right now the people sent to Washington with the checks of the top .001% have spent more than they have taxed, the top .001% that gave them most of the money to get there, want them to take the shortfall out of the pension funds so as to not make them pay it, I think there should be an automatic increase in taxes on people making over $250,000 as long as we are taxing income, or people with more than a million net worth if we are taxing wealth, as we should be, to cover any shortfall on a quarterly basis that way when they are "supporting the troops" they would know that people that matter will be paying attention

[-] -1 points by WSmith (1866) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Tax Unearned income much more than Earned income. [How in hell did it get turned the other way around??]

We already had a Gilded Age, we don't need another one.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

As I recall in the beginning unearned income was called income and subject to the income tax, the other money you got for going to work was called wages, there wasn't a wages tax at first not till Social Security and that's still the way it should be.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1866) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

It's sooooo much better when the little people pay for everything, what do they need with money, anyway?

Our Enemy, the Payroll Tax: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/douthat-our-enemy-the-payroll-tax.html?_r=0

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I actually like the concept of the payroll tax, a certain percentage of what everybody makes held back to take care of the unexpected and old age, I don't like the name and I think it should be first dollar to last all forms of income.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Please send a message to fear mongerers, support the amendment against indef detention.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/support-mark-udalls-aendment-to-end-indef-detentio/

[-] -1 points by WSmith (1866) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

First to last and much more progressive and I'm all in. But not for the working poor. Tax the RICH!

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I think the first $50,000 any body makes should be tax free, that would encourage work, and let people are just getting started focus on their jobs and not have to worry so much about bailing out banks and such let the better off, further along, decide if they want to pay for that. This thing we got now where the well off decide everything and the working class pays the bill in money and blood is bullshit.

I think if the SS tax was first to last that would be OK, it would be everybody no matter how they make their money paying a fair share toward everyone's security that I think would build a stronger America in many ways.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (1866) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

TGIF minus the fucking IF!

[-] -1 points by WSmith (1866) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Now the fight BEGINS!!!

No going to sleep or adopting false illusions like 2008!!!!

It's Class War!!

We're Losing!!!

Fight BACK!!!

UNITE and WIN!!!

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

yeah it wasn't that hard to see really, anybody that says they are going to reach across the aisle can't get the nomination next time, we need a fighter not a compromiser, (come on Al, you can do it)

[-] -1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

I think there is definitely a problem, and a solution. I disagree with your conclusion, that we should reward work, not birth. That's a discordant conclusion.

Offer the highest interest rates to those with the least savings, and inverse the entire interest rate savings structure, the more one has, the LESS they get in interest rate savings.

This one act alone would begin to reverse the concentration of wealth. Here is example of the inverse interest rate savings structure...

Up to 20,000, get a 10% interest rate on savings,

20,000 to 30,000, 9.0%

30,000 to 40,000, 8.0%

40,000 to 50,000, 7.0%

50,000 to 100,000, 6.0%

100,000 to 250,000 5.0%

250,000 to 500,000 4.5%

500,000 to 750,000 4.0%

750,000 to 1,000,000 3.5 %

1 million to 10 million 3.0%

10 million to 50 million 2.5%

50 million to 500 million 2.0%

500 million to 1 billion 1.5%

Over one billion dollars in savings, you get 1.0% and the privilege of not having to pay for a standing militia and general (who will one day assassinate you) to guard your wealth 24/7.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Sure and tax the wealthy, and use that revenue to cut tax for the working class.

We want our money back goddamn it!

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

for now I would be satisfied if they just paid the damn debt their cronies ran up with the taxes, I can sort of get by myself as long as the government don't keep takin' from me and my retirement to give more to them that already have a lot...

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ok. That is acceptable. I certainly agree it was the 1% reckless irresponsible behavior that created the deficit/debt we have.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The way I see it is no-body gets to Washington with money they raised from the 99%, it's the 1%, or more like the .001% that pick the people everybody else has to choose from, now if those people ran off and ran up a bunch of debt, the folks that sent them should pay it.

(and yes I watched "All the Kings Men" over Thanksgiving so I may be folksee for a bit, I kind of like it)

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

All that is true. And the economic crash occurred because of the weak regulations that the 1% got passed by their puppets in govt. So anyway you look at it they did this to us! And have let us take the brunt of the pain.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

This is how I see it. Let’s say you have a company with shareholders, if you’re going to build the company from time to time you have to invest some funds. How at some point it becomes impractical to get every shareholder together to decide on every issue so they elect representatives called the board.

Now with the country we sort of do the same thing, but the board has ran up a bunch of debt and instead of having the shareholders pay it they are trying to steal it out of the pension fund, nothing new there. I see it as the more you own of the country, the more of the debt you own as well.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

That is a logical, reasonable, view of the situation, & an appropriate approach.

Let's hope for that, And let's fight for that.

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

This does that. If insured savings deliver a better return for main street than risking it on the stock market, then the ultra wealthy can gamble on the stock market and leave the rest of us out.

Inverse interest rate payment structures takes out the unearned inflation in value that many stocks get by simply being pumped and then dumped by the ultra wealthy. When the blue collar's investment's are removed from the stock market equation, pumping and dumping becomes much riskier for the ultra wealthy to partake in.

In turn, the ultra wealthy are now having to spend their own savings rather than skim their cost of living off the top of their own perpetual stock market reinvestment schemes that never fail, and when they do, the government props them up.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

If you say so.

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

If I say so? Why be fixated on taxation so much? The link between unions paying off politicians in exchange for their bloc of votes is pervasive.

The evidence of politicians being bought up by wall street is also evident.

Ideally, reducing the amount of wealth being used to automatically create more wealth is EXACTLY what your topic is bemoaning, no?

The proposal up above answers your complaint and incentivizes the saving of money. What we have now are interest rate payments on savings so low that main street gets goaded into investing on wall street where they stand much less of a chance of succeeding.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yes sir. I can't argue against it. Perhaps it would do exactly what you say. I'd be willing to give it a shot.

What can we do to get it implemented?

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

Well, the first step is get agreement from more than just you and me. lol, good luck with that. People hold onto their agreements tighter than their butt cheeks holding in a fart.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well I'll do my part. What's the plan/strategy.?

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

I'm actually working on a long term plan.

I am attempting to negotiate with an entity that won't take me seriously, but should. If I get that funding, I plan on devoting the rest of my life to proving that 2% credit cards are just as damaging as cigarettes, and that credit card protection insurance caused 90% of all credit card defaults to be illegally sought.

I'll work to have those 90% credit card defaults reversed, then create a sliding scale in which all credit card consumer debt is lowered on a range of 50% to 80% for all consumers because of actions the Credit card companies implemented in the 90's involving the 2% monthly minimum payment requirement and their corrupt credit card protection insurance program.

Then, once consumer credit card debt has been rightfully lowered, restructure credit card debt payments by raising the new lower amount due to a 5% of the total due which will help prevent consumers from going too far into debt while giving them more respend money each month as well.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Sounds like a plan. You have my vote (I do still support a limit on the amount of interest they can charge)

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

Credit Card debt needs to churn at a fast enough rate as to not be a prolonged cash cow of indenturedness for the banks, but rather an economic firestarter that is paid off in full over relatively short time span.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

And I agree with that generally as well.

Solidarity.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

interest payments themselves are part of the problem, mandating rates (even if you could) would solve nothing...

the reward "work not birth" is just a catchy way to say restore opportunity to America, don't see why you think that would be a bad thing....

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

It's not just the wealthy that pass on wealth to their kids. There are literally tens of millions of blue collar families who do the same. If you're goal is start everybody with zero wealth, then guess where they all go to get money to start up a business, the banks!

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I would not start everyone at zero, I'd allow 5 million to pass, as it is now half of Americans die with less than ten thousand to their name this would allow them to leave more by providing more opportunity.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

The other approach is to lower interest rates on mega wealth so that they are actually lower than what someone with 10,000 dollars in savings would get.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Manipulation of markets in that manner is both difficult to do and to enact.

Interest rates would rise as a reflection of the risk involved when governments that own printing presses stop borrowing then normal values would return.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (641) 1 year ago

The whole interest rate thing is shammy anyways. The government should be using their income tax revenue to pay the interest rate dividends on savings.

Banks could be voluntary income tax return locations and in exchange for processing their customers income tax returns, they get a nominal 1/2% of the revenue for operating expenses.

This in turn takes away the banks proclivity to try and make money on penalties, fees and interest rate charges.

[+] -4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Consumers that have allowed all our jobs to go overseas, and the bankers turn out housing into a slot machine.....

Dont forget that those very same consumers have been investing close to 0% of their money. I think since hte recession, its up to 2%.

A TV that works does not need to be replaced by a flat screen.

The top has rigged the game, and is continuing to do so. But the people's own ignorance is not helping either.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

yeah I remember seeing that movie where the "consumers" were sitting there working out where to source stuff from....what convoluted bullshit...blame the victim a Rush special...

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Its us that elect the very same people who rigged the game in the corporations favor decade after decade after decade.

We run the show. And we choose to hire criminals. I accept my part in it. Unless we are willing to look in the mirror and say "This is my fault" we will continue to blame and hence our actions will not change.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You just ain't willing to blame the corp 1% criminals perpetrating the crime.

The govt? sure blame them! the people for consuming? Yep blame the victim!. The voters for electing the pols? of course. Everyone but the criminals on top of the pyramid.

Transparent corp 1% apologist piece of shit!

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

we run the show?????

I guess that's it then we can go home now.....

the top .001% run the show and they owe the debt

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"consumers.....allowed our jobs to go overseas"? Whaaaaaat?

Maybe the corp 1% plutocrats that rigged the laws to give them tax breaks for outsourcing, so they could make windfall profits and the politicians (whatever party) that voted to allow those corp crimes should be blamed?

Consumers have to change their habits but the blame lies squarely with the corps that profited most and actually outsourced the jobs.

[+] -5 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Great. A tax on saving and investing, basically a jealousy tax. We need to encourage more saving, not less.

none of this will happen, but its informative to see how envious and jealous wasteful consumers are of the prudent and industrious.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

To see how the wealth tax would work, consider a family with $500,000 in wealth and $200,000 in annual income. Right now, they might pay $50,000 in federal income tax. With the wealth tax brackets described above, they would pay nothing. On the other hand, a family with $4 million in wealth and $200,000 in annual income would owe $65,000. Most families that depend on their wealth for their income would pay more, and most that depend on their earnings would pay less.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

So you would rather tax the shit out of people who hard all day for their money?

[-] -3 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Well now that you have asked: Sealyon had good point, 2 people make $100,000, one spends every nickel on fun and games while one saves, invests and conserves. Who is better for America?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

they keep telling me it's the one who spends, they say saving is good for you but bad for America

but that's beside the point if you have something don't you want to protect it? and don't you need some government for that? so why shouldn't you be the one to pay according to how much you have? and this system would have the extra benefit of being self adjusting so those with more for whatever reason, maybe they were born rich or won the lottery, would pay more and those with less would pay less, those that spend it all keep the whole thing going or so Bush told me after 9/11.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6457) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

they keep telling me it's the one who spends, they say saving is good for you but bad for America

but that's beside the point if you have something don't you want to protect it? and don't you need some government for that? so why shouldn't you be the one to pay according to how much you have? and this system would have the extra benefit of being self adjusting so those with more for whatever reason, maybe they were born rich or won the lottery, would pay more and those with less would pay less, those that spend it all keep the whole thing going or so Bush told me after 9/11.

yo "razor" you getting dull?