Damn, Kaze. That's very interesting..thanks for posting. And I hate it when Fox News keeps saying how the bottom 50 percent need to pay their share. According to Business Insider..the bottom 50% only own 2.5% of the wealth. Whats the point of going after that?
Yeah, I really hate how the rest of us, the 99%, get screwed over by the 1%. And whats even worse is how some people don't even realize this and even advocate for even more tax breaks for the rich because some how that money is supposed to trickle down to us.
Damn, Kaze. That's very interesting..thanks for posting. And I hate it when Fox News keeps saying how the bottom 50 percent need to pay their share. According to Business Insider..the bottom 50% only own 2.5% of the wealth. Whats the point of going after that?
Exactly, they don't pay taxes because its not worth trying to collect it. The government looks at their income statement and says:
"you know what... there isn't any meat on this bone you keep it".
That is a problem, they need to make enough money that they can contribute to society. But I wonder where those jobs and raises would come from.
Lastly name me one person in top 1% that would switch places with someone in the lower 99%. If they have it that rough, and the government is raking them over the coals so much that they can barely live then come join the 99% and I'll take your spot. I'm willing to sacrifice...
Yea, that's a problem with government corruption. Which can be solved by voting better people in.
Your choices are:
A: Candidate Rob Smith, who is bought and paid for.
B: Candidate Don Smith, who is bought and paid for.
Tell me how things are going to change by voting. You keep rolling the dice not even noticing that they're loaded.
Did you notice that Obama rode in on hope & change, campaign finance reform and a new way of working in Washington? Not to mention end the war on terror, close gitmo, reign in spending, roll back draconian laws like DOMA, provide a stable path to citizenship for immigrants? And then everything that Bush was doing just rolled over and kept on going? The policy will continue even if Obama is ousted from the white house. They might change a few buzwords but the same crap will just keep on rolling.
When both candidates are corrupt there are a few things at work here.
1) People without morals being voted into power.
2) People not properly researching the candidates background and character to shine light on the corruption prior to election.
3) People's apathy towards fixing the above issues.
It is incumbent on every voter to know what they are voting for. Not based on what the candidate says, but their actions.
Well it's hard to vote for a third party candidate when you have a crazy Republican like Michelle Bachmann spitting hate and anger and ignorance and for some reason reason gets a shit ton of votes, so I have to vote for the Wussy ass Democrat because he is less evil to keep the bat shit crazy person from winning.
When both candidates are corrupt there are a few things at work here.
1) People without morals being voted into power.
2) People not properly researching the candidates background and character to shine light on the corruption prior to election.
3) People's apathy towards fixing the above issues.
It is incumbent on every voter to know what they are voting for. Not based on what the candidate says, but their actions.
Oh no, it's more than that. It's some sort of political darwinism that we see now.
If you have two candidates, one is a pro-war democrat/republican, the other is an independent anti-war candidate that vows to abolish the entire military industrial complex, and you're a corporation that makes its primary business off of military contracts, who are you going to donate to?
Are you going to say, gee, I could be making millions, but the right thing to do is to help the anti-war campaign, or are you going to just donate to the people who will give you more business?
And it's not just that, it's corporate interest in pretty much every field of our lives. From the military, to healthcare, to education, even social security.
This is the type of political darwinism I'm talking about. The good candidates, the ones that the public would actually want, all die-off because survival of the political-fittest dictates that you have to be a party democrat/republican to run.
When both candidates are corrupt there are a few things at work here.
1) People without morals being voted into power.
2) People not properly researching the candidates background and character to shine light on the corruption prior to election.
3) People's apathy towards fixing the above issues.
It is incumbent on every voter to know what they are voting for. Not based on what the candidate says, but their actions.
In a perfect world maybe. In the real world, there is only so much the layman can do to discover his/hers candidates credentials outside what is given to them by media. A father working 10 hours a day isn't going to come home and spend what little time he has researching the actual facts of the matter.
To me, honestly its why we need a better education system, because some of the opinions you hear on both sides on complex matters just make your jaw draw. 9-9-9
In a perfect world maybe. In the real world, there is only so much the layman can do to discover his/hers candidates credentials outside what is given to them by media. A father working 10 hours a day isn't going to come home and spend what little time he has researching the actual facts of the matter.
To me, honestly its why we need a better education system, because some of the opinions you hear on both sides on complex matters just make your jaw draw. 9-9-9
Has our President said anything dealing with these Protests? The only thing I hear are Republicans calling everyone hippies and unamerican and a tiny few democrats supporting it.
Has our President said anything dealing with these Protests? The only thing I hear are Republicans calling everyone hippies and unamerican and a tiny few democrats supporting it.
Who cares what the president says. He can talk a big game but he can't really back it up. Like so many politicians, he cares more about the interests of corporation then the interests of the people.
Who cares what the president says. He can talk a big game but he can't really back it up. Like so many politicians, he cares more about the interests of corporation then the interests of the people.
While there may be some truth to what you're saying (he's probably influenced by corporations too), he is probably loving this movement, because it helps support his Jobs bill
The police are loosing credibility by the minute. If they keep doing this, nobody will take them seriously anymore. Don't they realize the the world is watching what they're doing? This is the age of the internet and smartphones. There are cameras everywhere they have authority and what they do can be available to view by the entire world in moments.
That was an excellent interview. He was spot on with pretty much everything. And the great thing about this movement is that it has no leader, no figurehead. That makes it so much harder to fight. The best strategy to quell a revolution is to take out its leader. Well, there is no leader because we are a democracy and we all carry the power equally. The people will work together to lead each other to reform our nation for the benefit of its people.
the immortal technique interview is great, i generally don't like rap much but i got a lot of respect for what he creates, and he was spot on, in the interview on all points.
Though i really wish the interviewer was more of a thinker and had some better questions for him.
I dunno, I think it was right to just let him talk there and give him a soapbox.
The thing I most agree with him is that the OWS movement needs speakers. It needs figureheads and demands. Most people seeing this stuff on the news have no idea what the protesters really want.
I dunno, I think it was right to just let him talk there and give him a soapbox.
The thing I most agree with him is that the OWS movement needs speakers. It needs figureheads and demands. Most people seeing this stuff on the news have no idea what the protesters really want.
oh i meant every-time he was waiting for a reaction from the interviewer you could tell she is still trying to comprehend what was just said and just fell back on generic questions.
I dunno, I think it was right to just let him talk there and give him a soapbox.
The thing I most agree with him is that the OWS movement needs speakers. It needs figureheads and demands. Most people seeing this stuff on the news have no idea what the protesters really want.
The fact that they have no central leadership and no figurehead is a good thing. That would give the corporate thugs something to target, a "head" to cut off. It's a common strategy to kill the leader in order to confuse and demoralize the enemy. Don't give them a target.
I like the idea he mentioned about making a run on the banks though. If everyone demanded their money at the same time, the banks would crumble and fall because they don't have enough "real" money to cover all the accounts. It would destroy the banking system at all levels all the way up the the Federal Reserve Private Bank. I think we have a target we can attack peacefully that will give us victory over the financial tyrants.
I dunno, I think it was right to just let him talk there and give him a soapbox.
The thing I most agree with him is that the OWS movement needs speakers. It needs figureheads and demands. Most people seeing this stuff on the news have no idea what the protesters really want.
That's not really correct. The OWS has a far higher approval rating among the general populace than the tea party movement for example.
It's not hard when wages have stagnated for 30 years, and everything you use as a middle class american is going to shit, to understand where the unrest is coming from.
Plus, it's the entire system at fault. It's not like someone can just point to one thing and say "please fix this thing" and everyone nods their head and goes, "yes this one thing". It's vague because it's such a corruption at all levels of society. Prisons, schools, taxes, subsidization, food, trade, war, movies, tv, etc etc etc.
Right because what we need now is further economic collapse and a bunch of people keeping their life savings in shoe boxes under their beds?
So you would chose to be a comfortable slave rather than a free man? Once the banks no longer own us, we can build a better economy for ourselves. It's not going to happen with them still controlling our money. I forget how well they've got people chained down with fear of loss of life and property. They have you because you fear to lose the system that provided you what comforts you have. If you're not willing to sacrifice security to gain liberty, then nobody can help you. Maybe when you have nothing left to lose, you won't be so afraid? I will not discuss the merits of a worldwide run on the banks further because I don't want this to devolve into a petty fight that distracts us from the real enemy, which is what they want. They want us to fight each other because then we're not fighting them.
No one is attacking hardworkers as such, its more about the banking/financing system, hence occupy - Wall Street. I don't think you can justify lots of people losing their savings and money because of banks? or can you? I mean anyone who works, puts their hard earned money, some people working two jobs lets say, into a BANK. Then loses their income, banks needing to be bailed out by governments!? Banks should be a service for storing momey earned, shit I might as well keep my cash under the fucking mattress. Duh.
My point is BANKS fucked up big time and its people who work jobs who prop banks up. I wish some people weren't so stupid and take out big credit for things they don't need.
Reading through this is hilarious. I love how some of you just enjoy demonizing people who worked there asses off and risked a lot to be successful.
Not everyone making over 250k is using this extreme tax loops and paying off the government. It's conversations like the one on this forum that shows how ignorant people are to all of this. Some of you even think that people at like 250k (or 380k whatever the number is)or even 500k should be taxed more than 35%? That is ridiculous. What incentives would people have to being successful if you take away half of their paycheck?
I'm not saying that there isn't corruption. But there aren't as many millionaires as you seem to think and all of them aren't these devilish fiends you make them out to be. Many successful entrepreneurs risked a lot of money and worked way more hours than your average worker at a Wal-Mart. The stress they take on is a lot more than some guy flipping burgers at McDonalds. If people really wanted to change something, they should start with trying to change there own life and pick a new career, something that better matches the income they want. Maybe when they achieve it they will see what it costs to make that money.
Again I'm all for ending corruption and tax loopholes and shit. I'm not up for demonizing the successful and hardworking and taking away all of their money.
No, it's the people who make far more than $380K a year (like 1 million or more) that aren't paying enough taxes. 35% of one million is 350K, leaving 650K and the more you make, the less that tax affects you. The more money you make the more you keep, when everybody under the 380K mark pays more as they earn more. Why should the tax burden not increase as the insanely wealthy make more money while the wages slaves have to pay out more as they move up through the tax brackets? It's fully apparent the tax system was set up to bear on those that make less than $380K, after all, the tax system was designed by Rothschild, J. P. Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc. on Jekyll Island to suit their needs. They wrote the tax code and they've been revising it further to their benefit over the proceeding decades.
Reading through this is hilarious. I love how some of you just enjoy demonizing people who worked there asses off and risked a lot to be successful.
Not everyone making over 250k is using this extreme tax loops and paying off the government. It's conversations like the one on this forum that shows how ignorant people are to all of this. Some of you even think that people at like 250k (or 380k whatever the number is)or even 500k should be taxed more than 35%? That is ridiculous. What incentives would people have to being successful if you take away half of their paycheck?
oh look it's another person who has no clue how tax brackets work, but is arguing in an authoritative tone.
let me make it very simple for you so that you can understand (made up numbers, I don't know the exact brackets or percentages).
Every single person's:
0-20,000 USD taxed at 10%
20,000-50,0000 taxed at 20%
50-100k taxed at 30%
It is only the money made in each bracket taxed at that amount. So even a person getting paid 500k a year, is only paying 10% tax on their first 20k, 20% on the 30k on top of that, etc. But even that aside, economic studies show that after basic living needs are met, more money does not net you better performance, it's a fallacy, so this "oh we have to pay these captains of industry* millions of dollars to incentivize them to make amazing things" is ridiculous. *more like authors of the financial crisis.
It never ever works out that you are bringing home less than you were before when you get a raise putting you into a new bracket.
Not to mention that during the time of America's greatest period production and inventions, the highest tax bracket was 90%, and these days the people making over 500k aren't inventing shit. Do they work 10x harder than a school teacher? maybe. 500x? not on your life. This bullshit fallacy that rich people earned all their money through pure hardwork is laughable.
Not to mention even if you are making 5 million USD a year, you are still part of the 99%. That should put this into perspective.
I'm not saying that there isn't corruption. But there aren't as many millionaires as you seem to think and all of them aren't these devilish fiends you make them out to be. Many successful entrepreneurs risked a lot of money and worked way more hours than your average worker at a Wal-Mart. The stress they take on is a lot more than some guy flipping burgers at McDonalds. If people really wanted to change something, they should start with trying to change there own life and pick a new career, something that better matches the income they want. Maybe when they achieve it they will see what it costs to make that money.
Again I'm all for ending corruption and tax loopholes and shit. I'm not up for demonizing the successful and hardworking and taking away all of their money.
Plus this quoted bit is just so much bullshit. Citation needed citation needed citation needed. The top 1% control 40% of the nations wealth. That's exactly as many millionaires as we think there are, it's the actual statistical fact we are talking about.
And your shitting on the worker at Wal-mart is ridiculous, since it's exactly the Walton family of millionares (all of which the current ones haven't worked a day in their life, they are "old money" one of the problems with paltry estate taxes and capital gains taxes. ) that is the enemy here, not the hard working people who show up every day for minimum wage to sell shitty Chinese made goods. How dare you judge them all worthless when many times it's the only job available, requires just as many hours of labor as any of us put in, yet pays the barest minimum they can legally get away with, while the owners cavort around on yachts and eat edible golden tarts.
Your bootstraps bit at the end is just again, so laughable, painting every wealthy person as some kind of hard working entrepeneur. Even if that were the case (and it's not) they are welcome to be ridiculously rich, they just owe the basic social contract to pay a portion of their crazy wealth to ensure the same thing is possible for the next generation. Instead they use their ill gotten wealth to ensure the only rich people of the next generation are their own spoiled crotch-spawn educated in private schools in gated communities.
It makes me wonder if there were peasants in feudal times that also argued it was fair and just that the king get to live a life of luxury and that's the way things should be, and by the way, pass the bubonic plague and lifespan of 35.
What? Really?! I'm not saying that you're wrong, Ben, but that's crazy! I would have thought anything over 500k or so would be the 1%. Got any links?
Sorry I got my quote mixed up, it's 6 million USD net worth or less and you're part of the 99%. the actual yearly salary is 600,000 a year. Above and you're in the 1%, and below you're in the 99%.
The 10% unemployment is not a ghastly horrible thing, the fact that it's nearing 25% unofficially however.. is.
After the collapse of the rising wages, women, who were essentially a type of "reserve workforce" in times of hardship, kinda sorta *had* to get jobs to keep living standards on par. That ship's sailed and everyone resorted to credit cards and debt to make it work. The fact that employment levels are crashing, new graduates are unable to find appropriate work which justifies their education and numerous others are fighting over the shit-level positions just to have *something*... yea, this isn't in any way sustainable even in the short term, especially as credit dries up along with the ability to maintain a dual-income household, or in many cases a single full-income household.
Combine all that in with people who should be considering retirement are now unable to do so as their nestegg has been devastated... so they will work till they die, most likely under worsening conditions, as they know it's their only opportunity (who's gonna hire old people with health care rates going through the roof?)
could you agree that everyone is deserves affordable healthcare
could you agree that everyone deserve affordable education
or is that for the lucky?
people are not asking for yachts. How about a fair wage, and not have to worry about going bankrupt because you get sick...or not being an indentured servant to a bank because you wanted a education
And comparing the poor peseants to the "poor" of today is a joke. The 99% of today have iPhones, flat screen TVs, cars and places to live. Oh I'm sorry they don't have yachts. Guess life isn't fair.
uh, no offense mheyman but I don't really think 99% of people have those things. maybe something like 20-30%? if even? and that's just within the USA.
However, I do agree with you, people that work hard and earn their money should be able to keep a very fair share of it. but that should also scale upwards... and unfortunately, a decent amount of people that are on top have earned a good portion of it illegitimately, at least the ones that spawned this movement. which is what it's about.
an executive gets a bonus in excess of $1,000,000. that's a SMALL bonus by todays standards, right?
what if they instead increased 1000 employees salaries by $1000 for the following year? it might not sound like much, but it's a start. especially if they did that for every member of the board.
And comparing the poor peseants to the "poor" of today is a joke. The 99% of today have iPhones, flat screen TVs, cars and places to live. Oh I'm sorry they don't have yachts. Guess life isn't fair.
We already went over this, you obviously haven't read the thread (also don't understand tax brackets) but think you have something to offer the debate by rehashing tired cliches we've already destroyed.
Electronics have been going down in price since the 70s, even an iphone is a one time purchase. The things people can't afford are places to live (and even 1% which is the dubious US statistic of homeless is still 3,5 MILLION people without places to live) healthcare, education, etc. You know, necessities.
The US has laughably low economic mobility. This is what you are stating, that anyone can move up if they work hard, and citing a few anecdotes you know as proof. The statistical fact is that the average Canadian, japanese, icelander, and german all have more chance to move from poor to middle class than americans. The actual fucking graph was even posted in this thread proving your assertion wrong. The chains keeping people in their place don't have to be literal iron to be just as effective.
this is from 2007, and things are worse now. Only the UK has lower social mobility than the US, mocking the idea of the American Dream (tm) Not to mention Norway with ultra high taxes has a greater number of startups that make it past the 2 year mark into profitability than the US for the past decade, proving that low taxes are not required for good business ideas to succeed (and seriously, Norway's taxes are crazy high compared to the US).
Education costs do suck. I know I went to a school that cost 40k a year. But I worked hard and got a job in an industry that many consider hard to break into. I don't believe this was all luck, (others might) I believe that I got my job through hard hard hard work.
First of all, a lot of it *was* luck. You didn't use hard work to be sure to pop out of white vagina in America, which was your biggest leg up already done before you pushed your first polygon, and second, the greater thing isn't that you don't deserve what you have, it's that right now it's not being appropriated to anyone based on merit. There are plenty of Americans working just as hard as you making 1/5 or less. And there are quite a few doing nowhere near the amount of work you are, and making 50-500x more.
When a nation has the power, resources, and wealth that America does, there is no excuse not to ensure every citizen has a place to sleep under shelter, medical care, a pension to retire when they get old, and education for when they are young. No excuse.
Please. Go find me a list of college scholarships for your typical middle class white male. Just because I am white and middle class doesn't mean I didn't need loans. However if I was a female or of a minority there are TONS of scholarships I could have applied for. I don't consider it lucky that I'm white, but even with your gripes about the current state of things you do consider me lucky to be born in America? I guess it is better than a third world country.
You are laughably ignorant.
Black sounding last names on resumes are called back 7x less frequently than white sounding, all qualifications being the same. Black resumes without felonies are called back less often than white resumes WITH felonies. Racism and discrimination is alive and well today, but I wouldn't expect someone who uses the "affirmative action is the real discrimination!" argument to know facts and figures. You have had so many leg ups your entire life because of your white privilege that you can't even see it. Have you worked hard? probably, but you were given opportunities than an identical woman or brown person would not have, putting them further and further behind at every stage even before the get to email their portfolio. But that's neither here nor there.
The fact of the matter is you can paint America as a meritocratic wonderland all you want, but the actual facts state otherwise.
Is America really so unique that it has 16% of it's population so lazy they are unemployed?
So unique that 1% are criminals needing to be jailed in prison.
So unique it's near the worst in infant mortality in the developed nations?
So horrible it can't even maintain basic infrastructure?
There is a systematic problem that is evident to anyone with a functioning set of introspection and any knowledge whatsoever of current events. Without those two key pieces of knowledge though, one could leap to all kinds of fallacious arguments...
One could argue that its not really about owning a flat screen TV or not, but more about the whole idea that everything is based on nonsensical virtual money credit system that simply goes nowhere but is the norm here in the US.
Replies
"you know what... there isn't any meat on this bone you keep it".
That is a problem, they need to make enough money that they can contribute to society. But I wonder where those jobs and raises would come from.
Lastly name me one person in top 1% that would switch places with someone in the lower 99%. If they have it that rough, and the government is raking them over the coals so much that they can barely live then come join the 99% and I'll take your spot. I'm willing to sacrifice...
A: Candidate Rob Smith, who is bought and paid for.
B: Candidate Don Smith, who is bought and paid for.
Tell me how things are going to change by voting. You keep rolling the dice not even noticing that they're loaded.
Did you notice that Obama rode in on hope & change, campaign finance reform and a new way of working in Washington? Not to mention end the war on terror, close gitmo, reign in spending, roll back draconian laws like DOMA, provide a stable path to citizenship for immigrants? And then everything that Bush was doing just rolled over and kept on going? The policy will continue even if Obama is ousted from the white house. They might change a few buzwords but the same crap will just keep on rolling.
And the house wins again, better luck next time.
1) People without morals being voted into power.
2) People not properly researching the candidates background and character to shine light on the corruption prior to election.
3) People's apathy towards fixing the above issues.
It is incumbent on every voter to know what they are voting for. Not based on what the candidate says, but their actions.
Oh no, it's more than that. It's some sort of political darwinism that we see now.
If you have two candidates, one is a pro-war democrat/republican, the other is an independent anti-war candidate that vows to abolish the entire military industrial complex, and you're a corporation that makes its primary business off of military contracts, who are you going to donate to?
Are you going to say, gee, I could be making millions, but the right thing to do is to help the anti-war campaign, or are you going to just donate to the people who will give you more business?
And it's not just that, it's corporate interest in pretty much every field of our lives. From the military, to healthcare, to education, even social security.
This is the type of political darwinism I'm talking about. The good candidates, the ones that the public would actually want, all die-off because survival of the political-fittest dictates that you have to be a party democrat/republican to run.
That addresses what you just mentioned.
How do you fix something that's broken in its very nature? Apathy or not, there's nothing you can do about it.
More reading!
Fact Check: Government regulations not a huge jobs killer
CHART OF THE DAY: These Are The 47 Percent
In a perfect world maybe. In the real world, there is only so much the layman can do to discover his/hers candidates credentials outside what is given to them by media. A father working 10 hours a day isn't going to come home and spend what little time he has researching the actual facts of the matter.
To me, honestly its why we need a better education system, because some of the opinions you hear on both sides on complex matters just make your jaw draw. 9-9-9
I've found this useful: http://www.votesmart.org/
Protest/gathering starting in London today.
If it's still going might check it out tomorrow.
looks like the cop sucker punches that dude
Shit is going down in Rome, I feel bad for the people who were there to protest peacefully.
While there may be some truth to what you're saying (he's probably influenced by corporations too), he is probably loving this movement, because it helps support his Jobs bill
Except for the Larouche fanatics
Yeah the cop blasts him in the face for not walking on the sidewalk
[ame="
[ame="
EDIT: dreamer, thank you so much!
That was really great.
Though i really wish the interviewer was more of a thinker and had some better questions for him.
The thing I most agree with him is that the OWS movement needs speakers. It needs figureheads and demands. Most people seeing this stuff on the news have no idea what the protesters really want.
oh i meant every-time he was waiting for a reaction from the interviewer you could tell she is still trying to comprehend what was just said and just fell back on generic questions.
The fact that they have no central leadership and no figurehead is a good thing. That would give the corporate thugs something to target, a "head" to cut off. It's a common strategy to kill the leader in order to confuse and demoralize the enemy. Don't give them a target.
I like the idea he mentioned about making a run on the banks though. If everyone demanded their money at the same time, the banks would crumble and fall because they don't have enough "real" money to cover all the accounts. It would destroy the banking system at all levels all the way up the the Federal Reserve Private Bank. I think we have a target we can attack peacefully that will give us victory over the financial tyrants.
That's not really correct. The OWS has a far higher approval rating among the general populace than the tea party movement for example.
It's not hard when wages have stagnated for 30 years, and everything you use as a middle class american is going to shit, to understand where the unrest is coming from.
Plus, it's the entire system at fault. It's not like someone can just point to one thing and say "please fix this thing" and everyone nods their head and goes, "yes this one thing". It's vague because it's such a corruption at all levels of society. Prisons, schools, taxes, subsidization, food, trade, war, movies, tv, etc etc etc.
So you would chose to be a comfortable slave rather than a free man? Once the banks no longer own us, we can build a better economy for ourselves. It's not going to happen with them still controlling our money. I forget how well they've got people chained down with fear of loss of life and property. They have you because you fear to lose the system that provided you what comforts you have. If you're not willing to sacrifice security to gain liberty, then nobody can help you. Maybe when you have nothing left to lose, you won't be so afraid? I will not discuss the merits of a worldwide run on the banks further because I don't want this to devolve into a petty fight that distracts us from the real enemy, which is what they want. They want us to fight each other because then we're not fighting them.
Google translate reveals "The military thus ensure that "serve the Portuguese people and not private institutions," and warns, "Let no one dare to think that the armed forces can be used in the repression of social upheaval that these measures may cause."
But there's a lot of other information that isn't translating too good.
My point is BANKS fucked up big time and its people who work jobs who prop banks up. I wish some people weren't so stupid and take out big credit for things they don't need.
No, it's the people who make far more than $380K a year (like 1 million or more) that aren't paying enough taxes. 35% of one million is 350K, leaving 650K and the more you make, the less that tax affects you. The more money you make the more you keep, when everybody under the 380K mark pays more as they earn more. Why should the tax burden not increase as the insanely wealthy make more money while the wages slaves have to pay out more as they move up through the tax brackets? It's fully apparent the tax system was set up to bear on those that make less than $380K, after all, the tax system was designed by Rothschild, J. P. Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc. on Jekyll Island to suit their needs. They wrote the tax code and they've been revising it further to their benefit over the proceeding decades.
oh look it's another person who has no clue how tax brackets work, but is arguing in an authoritative tone.
let me make it very simple for you so that you can understand (made up numbers, I don't know the exact brackets or percentages).
Every single person's:
0-20,000 USD taxed at 10%
20,000-50,0000 taxed at 20%
50-100k taxed at 30%
It is only the money made in each bracket taxed at that amount. So even a person getting paid 500k a year, is only paying 10% tax on their first 20k, 20% on the 30k on top of that, etc. But even that aside, economic studies show that after basic living needs are met, more money does not net you better performance, it's a fallacy, so this "oh we have to pay these captains of industry* millions of dollars to incentivize them to make amazing things" is ridiculous. *more like authors of the financial crisis.
It never ever works out that you are bringing home less than you were before when you get a raise putting you into a new bracket.
Not to mention that during the time of America's greatest period production and inventions, the highest tax bracket was 90%, and these days the people making over 500k aren't inventing shit. Do they work 10x harder than a school teacher? maybe. 500x? not on your life. This bullshit fallacy that rich people earned all their money through pure hardwork is laughable.
Not to mention even if you are making 5 million USD a year, you are still part of the 99%. That should put this into perspective.
What? Really?! I'm not saying that you're wrong, Ben, but that's crazy! I would have thought anything over 500k or so would be the 1%. Got any links?
Plus this quoted bit is just so much bullshit. Citation needed citation needed citation needed. The top 1% control 40% of the nations wealth. That's exactly as many millionaires as we think there are, it's the actual statistical fact we are talking about.
And your shitting on the worker at Wal-mart is ridiculous, since it's exactly the Walton family of millionares (all of which the current ones haven't worked a day in their life, they are "old money" one of the problems with paltry estate taxes and capital gains taxes. ) that is the enemy here, not the hard working people who show up every day for minimum wage to sell shitty Chinese made goods. How dare you judge them all worthless when many times it's the only job available, requires just as many hours of labor as any of us put in, yet pays the barest minimum they can legally get away with, while the owners cavort around on yachts and eat edible golden tarts.
Your bootstraps bit at the end is just again, so laughable, painting every wealthy person as some kind of hard working entrepeneur. Even if that were the case (and it's not) they are welcome to be ridiculously rich, they just owe the basic social contract to pay a portion of their crazy wealth to ensure the same thing is possible for the next generation. Instead they use their ill gotten wealth to ensure the only rich people of the next generation are their own spoiled crotch-spawn educated in private schools in gated communities.
It makes me wonder if there were peasants in feudal times that also argued it was fair and just that the king get to live a life of luxury and that's the way things should be, and by the way, pass the bubonic plague and lifespan of 35.
Sorry I got my quote mixed up, it's 6 million USD net worth or less and you're part of the 99%. the actual yearly salary is 600,000 a year. Above and you're in the 1%, and below you're in the 99%.
The 10% unemployment is not a ghastly horrible thing, the fact that it's nearing 25% unofficially however.. is.
After the collapse of the rising wages, women, who were essentially a type of "reserve workforce" in times of hardship, kinda sorta *had* to get jobs to keep living standards on par. That ship's sailed and everyone resorted to credit cards and debt to make it work. The fact that employment levels are crashing, new graduates are unable to find appropriate work which justifies their education and numerous others are fighting over the shit-level positions just to have *something*... yea, this isn't in any way sustainable even in the short term, especially as credit dries up along with the ability to maintain a dual-income household, or in many cases a single full-income household.
Combine all that in with people who should be considering retirement are now unable to do so as their nestegg has been devastated... so they will work till they die, most likely under worsening conditions, as they know it's their only opportunity (who's gonna hire old people with health care rates going through the roof?)
could you agree that everyone deserve affordable education
or is that for the lucky?
people are not asking for yachts. How about a fair wage, and not have to worry about going bankrupt because you get sick...or not being an indentured servant to a bank because you wanted a education
uh, no offense mheyman but I don't really think 99% of people have those things. maybe something like 20-30%? if even? and that's just within the USA.
However, I do agree with you, people that work hard and earn their money should be able to keep a very fair share of it. but that should also scale upwards... and unfortunately, a decent amount of people that are on top have earned a good portion of it illegitimately, at least the ones that spawned this movement. which is what it's about.
an executive gets a bonus in excess of $1,000,000. that's a SMALL bonus by todays standards, right?
what if they instead increased 1000 employees salaries by $1000 for the following year? it might not sound like much, but it's a start. especially if they did that for every member of the board.
We already went over this, you obviously haven't read the thread (also don't understand tax brackets) but think you have something to offer the debate by rehashing tired cliches we've already destroyed.
Electronics have been going down in price since the 70s, even an iphone is a one time purchase. The things people can't afford are places to live (and even 1% which is the dubious US statistic of homeless is still 3,5 MILLION people without places to live) healthcare, education, etc. You know, necessities.
The US has laughably low economic mobility. This is what you are stating, that anyone can move up if they work hard, and citing a few anecdotes you know as proof. The statistical fact is that the average Canadian, japanese, icelander, and german all have more chance to move from poor to middle class than americans. The actual fucking graph was even posted in this thread proving your assertion wrong. The chains keeping people in their place don't have to be literal iron to be just as effective.
this is from 2007, and things are worse now. Only the UK has lower social mobility than the US, mocking the idea of the American Dream (tm) Not to mention Norway with ultra high taxes has a greater number of startups that make it past the 2 year mark into profitability than the US for the past decade, proving that low taxes are not required for good business ideas to succeed (and seriously, Norway's taxes are crazy high compared to the US).
First of all, a lot of it *was* luck. You didn't use hard work to be sure to pop out of white vagina in America, which was your biggest leg up already done before you pushed your first polygon, and second, the greater thing isn't that you don't deserve what you have, it's that right now it's not being appropriated to anyone based on merit. There are plenty of Americans working just as hard as you making 1/5 or less. And there are quite a few doing nowhere near the amount of work you are, and making 50-500x more.
When a nation has the power, resources, and wealth that America does, there is no excuse not to ensure every citizen has a place to sleep under shelter, medical care, a pension to retire when they get old, and education for when they are young. No excuse.
You are laughably ignorant.
Black sounding last names on resumes are called back 7x less frequently than white sounding, all qualifications being the same. Black resumes without felonies are called back less often than white resumes WITH felonies. Racism and discrimination is alive and well today, but I wouldn't expect someone who uses the "affirmative action is the real discrimination!" argument to know facts and figures. You have had so many leg ups your entire life because of your white privilege that you can't even see it. Have you worked hard? probably, but you were given opportunities than an identical woman or brown person would not have, putting them further and further behind at every stage even before the get to email their portfolio. But that's neither here nor there.
The fact of the matter is you can paint America as a meritocratic wonderland all you want, but the actual facts state otherwise.
Is America really so unique that it has 16% of it's population so lazy they are unemployed?
So unique that 1% are criminals needing to be jailed in prison.
So unique it's near the worst in infant mortality in the developed nations?
So horrible it can't even maintain basic infrastructure?
There is a systematic problem that is evident to anyone with a functioning set of introspection and any knowledge whatsoever of current events. Without those two key pieces of knowledge though, one could leap to all kinds of fallacious arguments...