Occupy Wall Street Fail


captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#1891
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

That means if you are unhappy with the Gov you don't have to pay taxes if your complaint is ignored. People who are getting all they want from the Gov will happily pay taxes just to make sure nothing changes that.

Is that right or wrong?


Your perspective is too self-centered.

The system (overall) is what is in question and as per the Founding Fathers and their desire for equality for all citizens, that 'system' should reflect this equality. The present tax system uses the PC terminology of 'progressive', yet at its heart, it punishes some groups for succeeding and rewards others for not.

So, with this in mind, you tell me what's right and wrong in consideration of the description 'Equality for All'.
 
Tonington
+1
#1892
Progressive means to develop gradually in stages. Therefore a tax rate that increases step-wise as the tax base increases is a progressive tax. The very notion of a progressive tax pre-dates any notion of politically correct...

Adam Smith, from Book V of The Wealth of Nations:
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
Yes, Smith's work treated taxation, but not proportional to earnings.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1893
So the smarter you are and the more you make, should penalize you, in order that the scavengers and leaches of society who like nothing better than live off someone else can survive. I am in favor of a fair tax, but only if everyone pays their share. (20%-25% of all income above what ever the poverty level is, with no exemptions.)
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#1894
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Progressive means to develop gradually in stages. Therefore a tax rate that increases step-wise as the tax base increases is a progressive tax. The very notion of a progressive tax pre-dates any notion of politically correct...

Adam Smith, from Book V of The Wealth of Nations:

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
Yes, Smith's work treated taxation, but not proportional to earnings.

Where the conundrum lies is within the framework of equality and how the top tiers end up being targeted each time that the gvt needs to raise revenues. At one time the addition of sales taxes or other consumptive tax measures were installed to extract more reveunes, but now it is severely unbalanced to the point that one segment is virtually paying another segment to exist.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#1895
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

So the smarter you are and the more you make, should penalize you, in order that the scavengers and leaches of society who like nothing better than live off someone else can survive. I am in favor of a fair tax, but only if everyone pays their share. (20%-25% of all income above what ever the poverty level is, with no exemptions.)

That still penalizes the rich!

I have the best idea yet. Politicians should be required to take second jobs for wages which they contribute to the tax fund to compensate for their incompetence!
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1896
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

And these people on food stamps are the same ones that can barely fit through the Super Market double doors.

America's poor are the fattest in the whole world. In fact America's poor are more obese than America's wealthy!


MONDAY, Dec. 19 (HealthDay News) -- Obese Americans have smaller paychecks than those who aren't overweight, and this difference is especially strong among women, a new study finds.
The analysis of data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth revealed that in 2004, overall average annual incomes were $8,666 less for obese women and $4,772 less for obese men compared with normal weight workers.

http://health.yahoo.net/articles/weight-loss/obesity-linked-to-lower-paychecks
 
Tonington
+1
#1897
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

So the smarter you are and the more you make, should penalize you, in order that the scavengers and leaches of society who like nothing better than live off someone else can survive. I am in favor of a fair tax, but only if everyone pays their share. (20%-25% of all income above what ever the poverty level is, with no exemptions.)

Could American society exist with everyone being highly paid engineers, lawyers, doctors, scientists, and business executives? Nope. What's fair can mean a lot of things when you're talking about macroeconomics.

Drop the tax rate on the top earners, increase it on the low wage earners, and see what happens to your economy. You already have a demand issue. You'll drive demand up...in food banks. What do you suppose happens when the working poor have less after tax income? Who is buying the goods?
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1898
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Could American society exist with everyone being highly paid engineers, lawyers, doctors, scientists, and business executives? Nope. What's fair can mean a lot of things when you're talking about macroeconomics.

Drop the tax rate on the top earners, increase it on the low wage earners, and see what happens to your economy. You already have a demand issue. You'll drive demand up...in food banks. What do you suppose happens when the working poor have less after tax income? Who is buying the goods?

I think we are just about at the limit of the amount of money the Gov't. can get internally. So the answer obviously lies in two areas, more efficiency or funds from external sources (don't hold your breath) They might squeak a little out by taxing exports that are in big demand from Canada, which would mean other countries don't have the product. Ice worms is one we could look into.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1899
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Could American society exist with everyone being highly paid engineers, lawyers, doctors, scientists, and business executives? Nope. What's fair can mean a lot of things when you're talking about macroeconomics.

Drop the tax rate on the top earners, increase it on the low wage earners, and see what happens to your economy. You already have a demand issue. You'll drive demand up...in food banks. What do you suppose happens when the working poor have less after tax income? Who is buying the goods?

I do not want to drop the tax rate on anyone, but I would like everyone to pay something.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1900
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

I do not want to drop the tax rate on anyone, but I would like everyone to pay something.

That will NEVER happen.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#1901
Progressive tax rates - comes from 16th Constitutional Amendment which was created by Republican Nelson Aldrich.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1902
16th Amendment
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.
Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
+2
#1903
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

I do not want to drop the tax rate on anyone, but I would like everyone to pay something.

Is that not the case already? Even the very poor pay taxes that are included in the price of goods and services they purchase.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+1
#1904
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

So the smarter you are and the more you make, should penalize you, in order that the scavengers and leaches of society who like nothing better than live off someone else can survive. I am in favor of a fair tax, but only if everyone pays their share. (20%-25% of all income above what ever the poverty level is, with no exemptions.)

This is a great idea as long there are no deductions allowed for anything. The biggest forseeable problem with a flat-tax iunder the present system is that the wealthy can accumulate so many deductions so as to have an taxable income at or below poverty.

Now to address the 'progressive' structure some are whining about. Our system although proported to be progressive actually becomes regressive in a hurry. A family with an income below the median will use a larger percentage of that income on the various sales taxes and government fees than a wealthy person. For example look at vehicle registration or driver's lisence renewal. Look at gas taxes or any other value added tax.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#1905
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

This is a great idea as long there are no deductions allowed for anything. The biggest forseeable problem with a flat-tax iunder the present system is that the wealthy can accumulate so many deductions so as to have an taxable income at or below poverty.

Now to address the 'progressive' structure some are whining about. Our system although proported to be progressive actually becomes regressive in a hurry. A family with an income below the median will use a larger percentage of that income on the various sales taxes and government fees than a wealthy person. For example look at vehicle registration or driver's lisence renewal. Look at gas taxes or any other value added tax.

The rich are getting unfairly hit with a double whammy when they are paying more than their fair share of income tax. As they likely buy more consumer goods (unless they are hoarders) hence paying more in consumer taxes not to mention on top of that supporting things like employment. It's a moronic mentality that supports taxing the rich simply because they are rich. Time the rest of us get more efficient and for the Gov't to get more efficient and quit squandering on chopper rides!
 
Locutus
+1
#1906
Occupy Vancouver’s $1-million price tag





Thanks douchebags.




VANCOUVER — It appears the five-week-long Occupy Vancouver protest cost taxpayers nearly $1-million, mostly in overtime costs for police and engineering staff.

A report sent to Vancouver city council Monday by city manager Penny Ballem and her deputy, Sadhu Johnston, puts the cost of the protest at $981,103 as of Dec. 15.

The largest expenditure was on policing at $590,000, with more than half of that spent in the first few days of the protest. About 5,000 citizens rallied in the downtown core on Oct. 15, the first day of the protest.




more


Occupy Vancouver protest cost taxpayers almost $1-million | News | National Post
 
mentalfloss
#1907
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

Occupy Vancouver’s $1-million price tag

Thanks douchebags.


VANCOUVER — It appears the five-week-long Occupy Vancouver protest cost taxpayers nearly $1-million, mostly in overtime costs for police and engineering staff.

A report sent to Vancouver city council Monday by city manager Penny Ballem and her deputy, Sadhu Johnston, puts the cost of the protest at $981,103 as of Dec. 15.

The largest expenditure was on policing at $590,000, with more than half of that spent in the first few days of the protest. About 5,000 citizens rallied in the downtown core on Oct. 15, the first day of the protest.

more


Occupy Vancouver protest cost taxpayers almost $1-million | News | National Post


 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#1908
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post


... So, you'd have no problem then if that $1 million was taken out of the Insite budget?
 
mentalfloss
#1909
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

... So, you'd have no problem then if that $1 million was taken out of the Insite budget?

So you think picking a random item to pull off the budget line makes any sense?
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1910
Food, and other essential items have no tax on them in most states. Paying a tax on something you want rich or poor is perfectly all right, some will just have to save a while or do without. (A Rolls Royce or what ever car you may like is just a dream for most)
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#1911
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

So you think picking a random item to pull off the budget line makes any sense?

It's not random.

I was interested in hearing all of your reasons why the focus should be on the corps and high net worth individuals.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#1912
Our government is way too big. Way too big and these entitlement programs are off the charts and being abused in an alarming amount.

Someone mentioned food stamps are on the rise. Why not... its free money. Food Stamp cards (SNAP Cards) are being sold 50 cents on the dollar for cash all over this country. Stories abound of fraud... a millionare still collecting food stamps... selling SNAP Cards on Ebay and Craigslist. The US Government lost $753 Million in food stamp fraud last year.

And welfare benefits... or EBT Cards. Massachusetts residents were using EBT cards in Hawaii, New Orleans, Puerto Rico, Orlando Florida (Disney World), etc. Millions and millions of welfare money being spent on vacations.

Don't get me started on PORK. Hundreds of millions wasted each year on foolish projects, studies, etc.

And yes... corporate bail outs and corporate welfare. All this baloney has to stop.
 
mentalfloss
#1913
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Our government is way too big. Way too big and these entitlement programs are off the charts and being abused in an alarming amount.

Someone mentioned food stamps are on the rise. Why not... its free money. Food Stamp cards (SNAP Cards) are being sold 50 cents on the dollar for cash all over this country. Stories abound of fraud... a millionare still collecting food stamps... selling SNAP Cards on Ebay and Craigslist. The US Government lost $753 Million in food stamp fraud last year.

And welfare benefits... or EBT Cards. Massachusetts residents were using EBT cards in Hawaii, New Orleans, Puerto Rico, Orlando Florida (Disney World), etc. Millions and millions of welfare money being spent on vacations.

Don't get me started on PORK. Hundreds of millions wasted each year on foolish projects, studies, etc.

And yes... corporate bail outs and corporate welfare. All this baloney has to stop.

From a government perspective, I would say that size is a symptom of the problem.

The real problem is that government is spending on things that may harm the economy. In some instances, people need help and there is nothing else you can do. But, yes, it remains to be seen if bail outs are worth it.
 
EagleSmack
#1914
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

From a government perspective, I would say that size is a symptom of the problem.

The real problem is that government is spending on things that may harm the economy. In some instances, people need help and there is nothing else you can do. But, yes, it remains to be seen if bail outs are worth it.

Sure some people need help. But then there are others who are abusing the system. And when they get caught... they still get benefits.

Hunger in the U.S....lmao. We need the Fire Department to pry some of our poor out of their apartments and bed because they are morbidly obese.

Oh and the guy that wants to live as a baby and recieves welfare so he can maintain is infantile lifestyle. He won his case and is now going to sue the state that dared try and take his benefits away.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#1915
Quote:

quoting Eagle,

Our government is way too big. Way too big and these entitlement programs are off the charts and being abused in an alarming amount ... And yes... corporate bail outs and corporate welfare. All this baloney has to stop.


While you make a good presentation, I suggest that foreign wars and the military industrial complex should be included in that priority removal listing.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1916
Keep in mind that the military industrial complex employees 100's of thousands of workers and is the main source of our technology (good or bad). I would continue to let them do their thing.
 
MHz
#1917
I wonder if they will adopt the tactics of the 1812 campaign against the White House. When it got cold out the war was taken to the taverns. The drunks spilled the beans and the rest is history.
If mandatory drug-testing to work in a dry-camp then elected officials should have to submit to a weekly test in that their value to society is so much greater their soberness should also be that much greater. Lead by example in this case.

Technology would survive even if the scraps we get are based on building a bigger and better bomb, in $ecret as much as po$$ible. Without the cost of war (or preparation for one that never gets fought). In fact it might even be a busier time for mankind if using the energy that oil has to reshape the fields that grow our food into fields that are flood/drought resistive and permanent dry areas are designed in for a flood that has minimal impact on an area and the harvest of food is offset by a month at best rather than being ruined for a whole year and the hardships that come with that.

Our auto/industrial sector should have all the basic components of a car be totally interchangeable with one another. The graphic design of a wheel can be determined by the builder, the bolt pattern is set by a public standard so wheels from any make will fit another vehicle of similar size. If that was just applied to wheels and brakes the cost of servicing them (standard on NASCAR racing late 1960's) then a completed brake overhaul (including anti-skid) would be about $100/vehicle instead of $500/corner.

Without the cost of the war machine the technology might be higher than it is in an open market where users are allowed to make 'improvements' as long as he shares how he did it. It could turn out that the sidetrack of war has been keeping us closer to all being 'Yugo' users than what is promoted. The energy supply comes with you plate renewal and that $70 tab is your fuel bill for the whole year. Yogo plates are pennies/year, the Ferrari with Hummer tires would run you a few dollars more.

When you have a society that can feed &cloth itself and then have free time that doesn't mean they have nothing to do, that free time is used to do things you didn't have time for when you were making everybody a set of shoes to wear.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#1918
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Keep in mind that the military industrial complex employees 100's of thousands of workers and is the main source of our technology (good or bad). I would continue to let them do their thing.



Ron Paul is now the leading candidate among the Republicans. True libertarians have always pledged to dissolve the military industrial complex. Hopefully, he will stand by principle and do it. Then he will allow private industry to advance science and create employment without government money.

Which brings to mind yet another OWS failing - its failure in pointing out the principle I have just told you. To his credit, Paul has endorsed the OWs movement and calls it ''healthy''. However, it the movement had just a little more sense and pointed out its consistency with his principles, he would have taken the forefront of the movement and it would not have failed as it did.

VIDEO: Ron Paul Defends Occupy Wall Street - Amherst, NH Patch
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1919
Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination for President. He is just moving up by default.


NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Three national polls released Wednesday showed Newt Gingrich ahead of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, who has snatched a firm third-place position in every national survey since Herman Cain suspended his campaign.

Ron Paul Snatches Third in National Polls - TheStreet


Ron Paul 2012: New National Poll is Reality Check After Iowa Upset - International Business Times
 
EagleSmack
#1920
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

While you make a good presentation, I suggest that foreign wars and the military industrial complex should be included in that priority removal listing.

There is fat to be trimmed everywhere

Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Ron Paul is now the leading candidate among the Republicans.


Say what?
 

Similar Threads

3
Obama’s fight with Wall Street
by Liberalman | Apr 23rd, 2010
5
Mushroom Cloud over Wall Street
by darkbeaver | Oct 21st, 2008
8
Wall Street is greedy?
by YoungJoonKim | Sep 26th, 2008
0
Wall Street Journal: Industrious Albion
by Blackleaf | Nov 7th, 2006
no new posts