Actually you're the one throwing around fact-less arguments appealing to bootstraps and feel good "work hard and you'll do fine, always!" statements.
I could take 5 hours and hunt down the links for all the studies I've been quoting, but you've posted such horrible, poorly-informed opinions, I just don't trust any of that effort to change your mind, so I'm not going to bother. Especially since none of your posts have contained anything but hand waving. (considering I've already posted in this very thread about the 9.1% vs the real number of 16.5% from the actual US government).
I spend a lot of my time reading up on politics, history, and the state of the world. I sometimes paste good quotes or arguments into a text file for later use, but I'm not Noam Chomsky with a flawless rolodex of links to Lexus Nexus papers that I can call up at a momment's notice for internet doubters.
I don't really need to read 15 pages of people crying inequality and wanting something for nothing. America is becoming an increasingly lazy country, it is no surprise to me that other countries have more mobility. You might have a fancy graph saying what the numbers are but is there a reason why? What is stopping these people? I'd say the number one thing preventing you from moving up is yourself and your decisions. People just refuse to take responsibility for their own life. I never said it was easy, I said it was possible.
Lets try to bring it down a few notches here guys, this thread has lasted this long because it is covering an event that is currently happening, lets try not to make it another political shit-tossing contest.
So lets try to limit it more information about what is actually taking place, and less with the heated back and forth type stuff.
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.
That is because of the simple fact that real wages have been stagnating since the 70s. How can people continue with the increasing cost of basic necessities (transportation, housing, education, and medical costs have not been stagnating) without credit?
It's very easy to go "Personal accountability!!!" (not saying you are Pior) and cite people's use of credit and debt, but the vast majority of Americans have been offered very little choice in the matter. It's either go into debt at some point, or not pay for an emergency room visit, or have your car broken down to get to work, or no heat this month in the winter.
I think a lot of Polycounters forget that we are lucky to be in a much higher paid salary bracket than the majority of Americans. The median income in the US is 26,000 USD per person. I made a significant amount more than that at my first job as a junior artist, and my last US job was 3x the median. The last Gamasutra salary survey puts most animators and 3d artist at 2-3x the median income. The people we know are not a good sample to pull our ideas of what the "average American" is like economically.
the vast majority of Americans have been offered very little choice in the matter.
Totally agree, that's a big part of it. The whole system ended up being designed that way, it's super sad to witness. I hope that the OWS crowd keeps that in mind, as I think this is the core of the issue.
I think a lot of Polycounters forget that we are lucky to be in a much higher paid salary bracket than the majority of Americans. The median income in the US is 26,000 USD per person. I made a significant amount more than that at my first job as a junior artist, and my last US job was 3x the median. The last Gamasutra salary survey puts most animators and 3d artist at 2-3x the median income. The people we know are not a good sample to pull our ideas of what the "average American" is like economically.
$26,000/yr would be nice to have right now. I can't even find a job here that isn't skilled labor requiring licenses or specialized training. Retail is saturated here and so is food service. Everything else requires a Bachelor's or at least an Associate's. I've been looking since May, been on only four interviews (out of 40 job applications sent out), and none have called me back. To really make that stink, my wife and I are on the the hook for about 140K in college debt, another $6-7K of credit card debt (gotta buy groceries and fix the car somehow), and a car loan because my wife injured her back last year (had surgery) and had to give up her manual for an automatic. Oh, and I just became a father, so I feel bad that I can't provide for my child.
Before all this, I had a job, almost no debt, and I was doing fine. Then I decided I wanted to go to college and get into the game industry in 2006. Picked up a whole lot of debt for a degree that had no merit to the industry and I didn't even get to finish because I didn't qualify for any more loans. So I'm out of school, no recent job history, and a huge debt hanging over my head. I was better off without a college "education". Now they have the money, I have no degree, and I'm no closer to a job than I was before I started. Nobody ever teaches you about handling money in public school. They don't teach you how money works, because they don't know either, it's a secret and if people knew, they'd be at the banks with torches and pitchforks. I was completely unprepared for what I got in to and I wish to hell I could take it all back.
Was I ignorant? Yes. Did I make poor choices? Definitely, but the system preys on the ignorant and impulsive. They go out of their way to make sure most applicants are ignorant and make promises that they can't keep to give out loans they know we can't afford because the know the government will cover it if any default. Did I deserve to have my life destroyed just because I wanted to do better for myself? Hell no! I deserved to know the truth about what would happen if I wasn't successful.
Hey can someone resolve this for me. With JP Donation.
JPMorgan Chase recently donated an unprecedented $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation. The gift was the largest in the history of the foundation and will enable the New York City Police Department to strengthen security in the Big Apple. The money will pay for 1,000 new patrol car laptops, as well as security monitoring software in the NYPD’s main data center.
New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly sent CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon a note expressing “profound gratitude” for the company’s donation.
“These officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe,” Dimon said. “We’re incredibly proud to help them build this program and let them know how much we value their hard work.”
Beginning in 2010, JPMorgan Chase donated technology, time and resources valued at $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation, including 1,000 new patrol car laptops. The gift was the largest in the history of the foundation and will enable the New York City Police Department to strengthen security in the Big Apple.
New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly sent CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon a note expressing "profound gratitude" for the company's donation.
"These officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe," Dimon said. "We're incredibly proud to help them build this program and let them know how much we value their hard work
Note the difference? Did Morgan change it or did these groups paraphrase what was on the page? I.E. Did this large donation come in this month or has it been trickling in since 2010.
I don't know if they got the donation all at once or over a period of time, but it still creates special interests.
Now, the people high in the command chain at the NYPD sub-consciously want to do more for these institutions giving them money. Then they perceive the protesters as being a threat to the institutions that donated.
It has a very direct influence on how the NYPD handles these situations I believe.
I totally get that the rich do owe their % of taxes. I feel like people want more than that.
For me personally its less about getting the rich to pay their "fair share" even though they pay a lot less through loop holes and cap gains (where their money actually comes from). For me its more about limiting their influence in the political system. Right now people like the Koch brother, George Soros, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Karl Rove ect... they buy influence. They are allowed access to people who write the laws and they enact laws that are extremely biased in their favor and often override the greater good of the rest of the nation if not world. I honestly don't give a shit about taxes or balancing the budget.
This is about which system do you want to live in... A democracy ruled by the people?
Where it can be semi-dysfunctional when elected officials forget their job is to compromise, but overwhelmingly works.
Or A plutocracy ruled by a wealthy elite?
Where a small minority of people act out of self indulgence to the deteriorate of everyone around them.
So far every plutocracy has been overthrown, often violently after all other means have been exhausted. The plutocrats who have co-opted our system have a chance to return it to the people peacefully through simple reforms. They can avoid sending our nation over the edge and into a violent rebellion, or they can choose to go the way of EVERY past plutocracy... the choice is theirs. Continue being rich but do it in a fair and balanced way, or quite possibly have their mansions ransacked and forced to flee the country like in Tunisia and other fake democracies around the world.
big ass marine calling out the cops for being cowards
He had a unique opportunity to say what a lot of people are feeling, just about anyone else would of been beaten down.
He gets right up to the line where they would of taken down any other person.
Notice they try to get the cameras and other people listening to him to move on when he's clearly staying put. They also geared up big time for a take down that never happened, I'm glad he kept his cool. One cop was close to pushing him over the line tho...
If only there where more people like him, well indeed there are they just don't make it on the news because they're ordinary people who normally can't afford to get that level of breathing space without being shut up, so for that, my hats off to him, well done.
I haven't been proud of the military ever, but in Sgt. Shamar Thomas I can take pride.
~ There IS no fix to this. Only ways of slowing down the road to destruction.
A nation cannot be built on credit. It's impossible.
If I am a bank and I loan $1 to someone. And then expect $2 back (because of credit interest). Where the FUCK is the other dollar coming from?
That initial dollar doesn't exist, they created it literally from nothing. The bank didn't loan you money, it gave you a promise for money. You put up the thing you're buying as collateral (fraud, because you don't own it yet) and they promise you money that doesn't exist (Also fraud, because they don't have the money). If they didn't pull non-existent money out of their ass, backed by your promise to pay it back with your labor earnings, they would end up with all the money and it would be worthless to them.
You can't buy property, education, or transportation without a loan today. Those things cost too much because of easy credit. So when you do finally bite the credit bullet, you become a slave to your own debt.
So what is the solution then. No loans can ever be made? Not interest can be charged on loans?
Both of those are terrible solutions and would never work. Its easy to look at it and go oh the concept of credit is the problem, but that is very short sighted. Its not that loans/credit are inherently bad, its the type of loans and how they were/are handled that is the problem.
Do you see not being able to buy a home until you're 53 years old because you've saved enough cash to actually afford it as something that will increase upward mobility?
Leaders of companies, that had no impact on this problem, are now being lumped into this group that is being labeled as the top 1%. Even though they provide jobs and wages to plenty of people.
MOST People aren't saying everyone in that 1% is evil or corrupt, it's a metaphor. It's an idea and a way to illustrate the problem. Most is condemning people who have worked hard and made money the right way. And those who are, I believe are misinformed.
But you have to understand there is just as much (I would wager more) misinformation and ignorance on the other side, with the group of people saying things like:
I don't really need to read 15 pages of people crying inequality and wanting something for nothing. America is becoming an increasingly lazy country...
There are too many people that come home, turn on Fox News and think they are an authority on world news, politics, and economics, when they don't really understand a large portion of what's REALLY going on.
So what is the solution then. No loans can ever be made? Not interest can be charged on loans?
Both of those are terrible solutions and would never work. Its easy to look at it and go oh the concept of credit is the problem, but that is very short sighted. Its not that loans/credit are inherently bad, its the type of loans and how they were/are handled that is the problem.
Do you see not being able to buy a home until you're 53 years old because you've saved enough cash to actually afford it as something that will increase upward mobility?
Or just make fraud actually illegal.
They loan out each one dollar they have ten times. I don't see why it's legitimate to loan out fake money. The reserve ratio needs to be 1:1
So what is the solution then. No loans can ever be made? Not interest can be charged on loans?
Both of those are terrible solutions and would never work. Its easy to look at it and go oh the concept of credit is the problem, but that is very short sighted. Its not that loans/credit are inherently bad, its the type of loans and how they were/are handled that is the problem.
Do you see not being able to buy a home until you're 53 years old because you've saved enough cash to actually afford it as something that will increase upward mobility?
The idea of loans/credit isn't the problem, it's when they are used within a system of capitalism, because since the banks are private, they have an incentive to make a profit. They do this by charging you much more than the actual utility they are providing you, so they can extract the excess value for stock profits CEO bonuses, etc. Once they accumulate enough, they can then bribe the legislative branch to increase the credit card percentage rate (seriously the US's maximum allowed interest rate is illegal in most developed nations, and was even outlawed in the Bible and Qur'an, it's called Usury when it's that high), allow hidden charges or to rearrange your charges to maximize overdraft fees, pay-day loan branches, etc etc etc etc ETC!!
There is a way to make loans and offer credit without this happening, but it's called nationalized banks, and that's an anathema to America, because it would ruin bank profits, and goes against the decades of propaganda efforts by the 1% to demonize anything state owned to the other 99%.
So what is the solution then. No loans can ever be made? Not interest can be charged on loans?
Both of those are terrible solutions and would never work. Its easy to look at it and go oh the concept of credit is the problem, but that is very short sighted. Its not that loans/credit are inherently bad, its the type of loans and how they were/are handled that is the problem.
Do you see not being able to buy a home until you're 53 years old because you've saved enough cash to actually afford it as something that will increase upward mobility?
You can't make profitable loans without either draining the money supply dry (which makes the currency worthless) or creating it out of nothing, thus cheating the borrower (by not actually having the money they loan out, because it's only a promise to pay). And the fact that they don't actually have the money they promise you is just simply fraud. The only way to loan money is without interest and 100% reserve.
The way they work is like this: You ask me to loan you my hammer, but instead of providing an actual hammer, I give you a promise of a hammer and, in turn, you owe me an actual hammer, plus interest. I've given you nothing but a debt and demand you pay me back plus interest on top of that. That's exactly what banks do. But worse than that, even though they've provided nothing in the contract, they get to take your actual property if you default. How is that right? How is that sustainable? It's a system that leeches on the labor of honest working people without producing one bit of real wealth in the process. As in resources, services, property, and products. What's what real wealth is. They use this power to create money to buy off our government and tilt the law in their favor while making it harder to get by without credit. When we can't get by without credit, we become dependent on it, which is great for them because you'll keep coming back for more debt slavery.
"Do you see not being able to buy a home until you're 53 years old because you've saved enough cash to actually afford it as something that will increase upward mobility?"
You're using hyperbole and speaking from ignorance, I'm afraid. It is because of this money system that it's impossible to buy a house without a loan. It's the source of the problem, not the solution.
The idea of loans/credit isn't the problem, it's when they are used within a system of capitalism, because since the banks are private, they have an incentive to make a profit. They do this by charging you much more than the actual utility they are providing you, so they can extract the excess value for stock profits CEO bonuses, etc. Once they accumulate enough, they can then bribe the legislative branch to increase the credit card percentage rate (seriously the US's maximum allowed interest rate is illegal in most developed nations, and was even outlawed in the Bible and Qur'an, it's called Usury when it's that high), allow hidden charges or to rearrange your charges to maximize overdraft fees, pay-day loan branches, etc etc etc etc ETC!!
There is a way to make loans and offer credit without this happening, but it's called nationalized banks, and that's an anathema to America, because it would ruin bank profits, and goes against the decades of propaganda efforts by the 1% to demonize anything state owned to the other 99%.
Right right, I agree with all of that, but reading Greevar's post you'd think it was the basic concept of loans, and people applying for loans that were the root of the problem. Seriously, I'm committing fraud because I have a mortgage?
Right right, I agree with all of that, but reading Greevar's post you'd think it was the basic concept of loans, and people applying for loans that were the root of the problem. Seriously, I'm committing fraud because I have a mortgage?
I wasn't accusing borrowers of fraud, they don't even know they're doing it. The banks are wholly to blame, they created a system based on committing fraud.
The idea of taxing the 1 percent really isn't about punishing entrepreneurs. It's about people getting scammed and losing their money while completely abiding by the rules society set for them. Meanwhile people intentionally crash the economy, and doubly suck all the wealth out by betting the crash will come and taking government subsidies. If someone feels like they're getting shafted by their business owner, and they show up at OWS, whatever. The owner may or may not be corrupt, but he's not the final target. He would be a symptom of a fundamentally broken system.
Err... what?
I fail to see how taxing the top 1% connects to any of that.
I was under the impression the point of taxing the top 1% was because our national debt is now growing faster than our GDP (which has to do with a LOT more than just bailouts and stimulus) and the best way to control it without putting the elderly on an iceflow is to tax the wealthiest people in America because they're in the best position to pay for it.
The overwhelming majority of the people in the top 1% are not bankers, if the object here is some kind of economic justice for the people who caused the financial meltdown then people have picked the wrong targets.
I fail to see how taxing the top 1% connects to any of that.
I was under the impression the point of taxing the top 1% was because our national debt is now growing faster than our GDP (which has to do with a LOT more than just bailouts and stimulus) and the best way to control it without putting the elderly on an iceflow is to tax the wealthiest people in America because they're in the best position to pay for it.
The overwhelming majority of the people in the top 1% are not bankers, if the object here is some kind of economic justice for the people who caused the financial meltdown then people have picked the wrong targets.
In short, the 1% exploits the public infrastructure to make their massive income and cheats the rest of us out of our rights and the fruits of our labor in the process.
In short, the 1% exploits the public infrastructure to make their massive income and cheats the rest of us out of our rights and the fruits of our labor in the process.
The loan is for investment. You take in the dollar, make money off of it, then pay back the other dollar.
You shouldn't really take out a loan unless you already have a job to pay it off or are going to be able to get one after the payments are required.
We should definitely learn how to buy things more with our own money.
Ganemi You're missing the point ENTIRELY.
ALL money comes from the Federal reserve which is given to the banks with a tax. Then all money that comes down to the people from the Banks gets taxed.
But if all money comes from the Federal Reserve then the 'TAX' is asking for money that comes from NOWHERE. So you will ALWAYS have more debt than money? How hard is that to understand?
In short, the 1% exploits the public infrastructure to make their massive income and cheats the rest of us out of our rights and the fruits of our labor in the process.
Words like "exploits" and "cheats" really turn me off to the Occupy cause. I believe that some people at the top of the economic food chain do that, using every edge their money affords them to make more money, but I also believe that some people bust their ass, putting the elbow grease behind good ideas and earn every cent of it.
I hate the blanket targeting an arbitrary group rather than the underlying problems. Looking at US income for 2010, the top 1%'s average income was $380,354. That's a lot, but it's not Rockefeller money - certainly the game industry has its own one-percenters. I'm sure John Carmack or Cliff Bleszinski pull that much in, they drive cars worth that much. I doubt any Polycounter is willing to accuse them of exploiting the public infrastructure to get rich and cheating us out of the fruits of our labor.
The problem isn't that some people make a shitload of money, but that the system has loopholes that let people duck their obligations. Making a million bucks a year doesn't mean you're screwing anyone over, just as you don't have to be a one-percenter to take advantage of exploits in capital gains taxes.
I hate the blanket targeting an arbitrary group rather than the underlying problems. Looking at US income for 2010, the top 1%'s average income was $380,354. That's a lot, but it's not Rockefeller money - certainly the game industry has its own one-percenters. I'm sure John Carmack or Cliff Bleszinski pull that much in, they drive cars worth that much. I doubt any Polycounter is willing to accuse them of exploiting the public infrastructure to get rich and cheating us out of the fruits of our labor.
I don't know about that, John Carmack exploits the public infrastructure by choosing to drive on a road, then he cheats his workers by paying them for their labor.
Your focusing too much on one message of 1% and tax. Its larger than that. I had a good conversation with a guy from citizens united and we agreed the following.
1. Reinstall reinstate the Glass Gteagall Act.
2. Install political donation rules baring corporations from donating versus people, and all donations must be made public and cannot be beyond a certain dollar amount per year based on current living standards. (So instead of saying only $1000 a year, it will rise and fall with economy)
3. Install term limitations for all members of congress. So we have people doing there jobs versus continually attempting to be reelected.
4. (This would be difficult). Rewrite the rules to no longer allow corporations to be "legal persons".
On the wallstreet side of things. This is harder and more about creating a new system of corporations. Instead of the bottom line being creating the LARGEST (i.e. whatever it takes to get the most) returns for the shareholders as the largest priority. Keeping the company in business, the employees, and then finally getting the shareholders a fair return versus a over maximized one. This will make them less like cancers growing uncontrollable and continually borrowing for revenue as they give so much to shareholders. Instead then looking long term.
Personally, thats not enough, and would like to see the whole system turned into employee only shares and co-ops. But thats what compromise is about.
Looking at US income for 2010, the top 1%'s average income was $380,354. That's a lot, but it's not Rockefeller money - certainly the game industry has its own one-percenters. I'm sure John Carmack or Cliff Bleszinski pull that much in, they drive cars worth that much. I doubt any Polycounter is willing to accuse them of exploiting the public infrastructure to get rich and cheating us out of the fruits of our labor.
I don't really understand what's going on with those numbers. Everyone keeps bringing up different numbers, and I can't tell what's what anymore. What's your source for that $380,354 number? Not saying it's wrong, I'd just like to see the source.
The most popular study for that seems to be this one that claims:
As for the top 1% -- those who take in $1.3 million per year on average -- they pay 30.8% of their income to taxes, which is a little less than what the 9% just below them pay, and only a tiny bit more than what the segment between the 80th and 90th percentile pays.
That's talking about people bringing in $1.3million a year. Much different than $380k.
Both of those numbers don't really make sense to me. We know there are people who make several times that just in bonuses.
So those numbers from the studies have to either be BS, or maybe they count pure income, excluding certain things like bonus checks or what have you. Or that the top 1% are so fucking good at hiding what they earn, that we're under the impression that the richest people in the US make only several hundred thousands a year.
But something's up with all those numbers. The top 1%, the ones who own the military industrial complex, they're billionaires and maybe even trillionaires. There's no way they make just a couple hundred thousands a year. No way I'm buying that.
Pull political campaign funding from the federal budget with a hardcap instead of private lobbyists? Or is it too late for something like that ?
You should also be careful about those income figures. Those are reported income figures so you sure as hell know that the people making the 6-7 figure reported salaries get taxed up the anus. But the reported income tax is quite a bit different than net earnings for some of these guys. As there are many idiots wanting to tax the "rich", I think some of the more informed people understand that there are the rich who contribute to the economy and sleazebags.
I think Warren Buffet pays himself only 100K but is worth billions. Although I think he remarked about being taxed too little.
I don't know about that, John Carmack exploits the public infrastructure by choosing to drive on a road, then he cheats his workers by paying them for their labor.
Seems pretty devious to me.
There's a line that's being blurred here that determines who the 1% is and many are misrepresenting it on both sides of the argument and too many are focusing on it. The 1% that people are enraged about are the millionaires that use the financial system to make money from the debt of the common citizen without adding anything to the wealth of the nation (basically, we do all the work, they collect the interest on our labor). These people ran the banks and investment firms and some were investors themselves. They create their money by exploiting legal loopholes created by them and their rich friends to benefit the top 1%.
There are entire corporations that intently and knowingly abuse the people and the earth to make their profits. They use their huge capital supply to buy laws that favor the type of business they want to do. They're not necessarily evil, but they certainly aren't compassionate to the welfare of their stakeholders (stakeholders are people affected by the actions of a business, not to be confused with shareholders).
Corporations need to be rolled back to what they were before Santa Clara Co. vs Southern Pacific Railroad. That is, they have a limited life span of 10 or 30 years. They cannot own other corporations. They cannot act outside of their chartered mandate to serve the public good and they cannot interfere in or fund politics. In exchange for these limitations, the shareholders are free of liability and can share in the profit of the company providing more capital for the company than a privately own business is capable of. Once the charter is expired or void, the company is no longer a corporation and it's shareholders are liable for it's actions. That's the way it was set up and that's the way it should be again. A corporation is just too destructive to be let loose on the market without restrictions.
If you were looking for my quote that about people labeling the top 1% as evil. Here it is.
It is this kind of thinking that spurred my initial post. I still concede to being fairly uninformed. But it is comments like these (that I see in many other places: twitters, facebooks etc) that completely turn me off to this entire protest.
You admit to being uninformed, yet you claim to know better than anyone else what's going on than the people who have been watching this scam for years? That makes it merely your opinion and your argument has no merit. If you don't know the details about the issue don't pretend to be able to pass judgement on the complaints of the people who do.
I don't really understand what's going on with those numbers. Everyone keeps bringing up different numbers, and I can't tell what's what anymore. What's your source for that $380,354 number? Not saying it's wrong, I'd just like to see the source.
The overwhelming majority of the people in the top 1% are not bankers, if the object here is some kind of economic justice for the people who caused the financial meltdown then people have picked the wrong targets.
Most of the ire is directed toward the wealthy, and Wall street, and since the average Wall street trader makes 600k a year, well that puts them squarely in the 1%.
I don't know about that, John Carmack exploits his workers by paying them less for their labor than the profit their labor generates.
Fixed it for you. Business owners are exploiting their workers when they keep excess value created. They don't deserve the vast majority of the profits. While Carmack and Jobs are indeed cases of brilliant minds, there are plenty of CEOs are just well connected business folks that schlubbed their way into the job (Meg Whitman anyone?). We the workers bust butt to make billion dollar profits and get a fraction of the profit, while the owners of the company who put in far less hours of labor than we do get paid 5-10x as much. I know plenty of people imagine that one day that will be them up there, so they have no problem with the system, but the vast majority of us will be laborers till the day we die and would benefit far more from being paid fairly for the product we generate. Not so some Publisher putz-faces can profit off our hard labor with an actual skillset and years of training the current developer most likely didn't pay for.
I hate the blanket targeting an arbitrary group rather than the underlying problems. Looking at US income for 2010, the top 1%'s average income was $380,354. That's a lot, but it's not Rockefeller money - certainly the game industry has its own one-percenters. I'm sure John Carmack or Cliff Bleszinski pull that much in, they drive cars worth that much. I doubt any Polycounter is willing to accuse them of exploiting the public infrastructure to get rich and cheating us out of the fruits of our labor.
The problem isn't that some people make a shitload of money, but that the system has loopholes that let people duck their obligations. Making a million bucks a year doesn't mean you're screwing anyone over, just as you don't have to be a one-percenter to take advantage of exploits in capital gains taxes.
Ok, but the top .1% average 2,5 million a year and there are 130k of them, The top .01% average 17 million a year, and there are 15k of them. There are not that many captains of industry curing cancer and inventing hovercars. This doesn't even take into account that economists know, without a doubt, that in non-manual-labor jobs, more money actual creates worse performance, so this incentive bullshit is exactly that, bull and shit. Watch this very easy to understand Youtube if you were unaware of this basic fact of human psychology.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc"]RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us - YouTube[/ame]
And with your second paragraph, you are trying to divorce two things that are impossible to separate. As long as individuals are allowed to accumulate obscene wealth, they will corrupt the system. That is how it works. That is why it's happening again, even though we as a society disassembled Feudalism hundreds of years ago. Capital seeks to entrench itself, no matter the barriers. So it does actually matter that there are single people earning millions of dollars (or euros), because what will always follow is those people using their money to corrupt the system. One or two will certainly maintain their morals in the face of corruption, but they are outliers, exceptions don't disprove a rule. That's *on top* of the fact that not a single person on earth generates millions of dollars of value through purely their own hard work and effort. Even the future inventor of the AIDS vaccine will be building on decades of medical research subsidized by the state and used tax-payer assets in building themselves as a person.
*edit* oh and if I worked for id or epic, I would absolutely accuse Carmack or Bleszinski of cheating me out of the fruits of my labor. Both of them put in a lot of effort, probably at least two, maybe three times as much as I would as a 3d artist, but their take home pay is many multiples of that, and the games are a product of the entire team. If they were by themselves in an office they'd have nothing.
Or that the top 1% are so fucking good at hiding what they earn, that we're under the impression that the richest people in the US make only several hundred thousands a year.
Pretty much this. Harry Hallaway CEO of Humana makes millions of dollars a year and owns 11 freaking mansions. He's just a CEO, imagine the people we don't know about and what they make.
Most CEO's of top level companies make around 400-500 times what their lowest level employees make compared to 40 years ago, then they made roughly 20 times that while average worker wages have hardly risen since 1970. Every year there is less and less for us and it all gets centralized to the 1%. People talk about "trickle down" economics. Well, it's not. It's actually a "geyser up" economy. The richest people should be paying more taxes than the majority, much more. They use the same infrastructure we do and our labor to get paid 500X more than the hourly employee. No, if they make 500X more than we do with the same public services and utilities, they should be paying at least 50% in taxes, more for those making 10 million and it should go up from there. Nobody making 1.3 million per year should have any trouble giving up 650K in taxes to fund the infrastructure and services they use to make that kind of money. If you're making 10 million and you're taxed at 80% for example, you're still making two-freaking-million-dollars a year net income.
Most CEO's of top level companies make around 400-500 times what their lowest level employees make compared to 40 years ago, then they made roughly 20 times that while average worker wages have hardly risen since 1970.
Just to clarify this, the number is 475x, and it's true *only* of the US. Venezuela is the next highest inequality and it's only 70x. German and Japanese companies only have 30-50x pay discrepancies, and we can all see that plenty of German and Japanese companies are run just as well if not better than their American counterparts. Why is it they can find qualified CEOs without paying them dump-trucks full of gold bouillon? Oh, it's because most CEO pay in the US is determined by the board of trustees, which is an incestuous circle jerk where the CEO of Kraft sits on the board of Coca Cola, and the CEO of Coca-cola sits on the board of Johnson and Johnson, and they all have a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" agreement. This is the natural result of cronyism, nepotism, capitalism. It's no surprise. I only point out the fact that this proves it's not required to pay a CEO 30 million dollars for them to run their car company into the ground, when Japan manages to get a 2 million a year CEO to run a successful one. Incentive based pay above the base-line living wage is a total myth.
Sixty-seven percent of those who responded to a Quinnipiac University survey said they agreed with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, who are upset that banks were allowed to earn huge profits after being bailed out during the recession, while average Americans remained under financial strain.
An even wider margin, 87 percent, agreed with the protesters' right to camp out in Lower Manhattan, as long as they obeyed the law. The movement began staging rallies more than a month ago.
Most of the ire is directed toward the wealthy, and Wall street, and since the average Wall street trader makes 600k a year, well that puts them squarely in the 1%.
Fixed it for you. Business owners are exploiting their workers when they keep excess value created. They don't deserve the vast majority of the profits. While Carmack and Jobs are indeed cases of brilliant minds, there are plenty of CEOs are just well connected business folks that schlubbed their way into the job (Meg Whitman anyone?). We the workers bust butt to make billion dollar profits and get a fraction of the profit, while the owners of the company who put in far less hours of labor than we do get paid 5-10x as much. I know plenty of people imagine that one day that will be them up there, so they have no problem with the system, but the vast majority of us will be laborers till the day we die and would benefit far more from being paid fairly for the product we generate. Not so some Publisher putz-faces can profit off our hard labor with an actual skillset and years of training the current developer most likely didn't pay for.
Ok, but the top .1% average 2,5 million a year and there are 130k of them, The top .01% average 17 million a year, and there are 15k of them. There are not that many captains of industry curing cancer and inventing hovercars. This doesn't even take into account that economists know, without a doubt, that in non-manual-labor jobs, more money actual creates worse performance, so this incentive bullshit is exactly that, bull and shit. Watch this very easy to understand Youtube if you were unaware of this basic fact of human psychology. RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us - YouTube
And with your second paragraph, you are trying to divorce two things that are impossible to separate. As long as individuals are allowed to accumulate obscene wealth, they will corrupt the system. That is how it works. That is why it's happening again, even though we as a society disassembled Feudalism hundreds of years ago. Capital seeks to entrench itself, no matter the barriers. So it does actually matter that there are single people earning millions of dollars (or euros), because what will always follow is those people using their money to corrupt the system. One or two will certainly maintain their morals in the face of corruption, but they are outliers, exceptions don't disprove a rule. That's *on top* of the fact that not a single person on earth generates millions of dollars of value through purely their own hard work and effort. Even the future inventor of the AIDS vaccine will be building on decades of medical research subsidized by the state and used tax-payer assets in building themselves as a person.
*edit* oh and if I worked for id or epic, I would absolutely accuse Carmack or Bleszinski of cheating me out of the fruits of my labor. Both of them put in a lot of effort, probably at least two, maybe three times as much as I would as a 3d artist, but their take home pay is many multiples of that, and the games are a product of the entire team. If they were by themselves in an office they'd have nothing.
Just to put your numbers on income into perspective, the top .1% make a collective 325 billion dollars a year on average and the top .01% make 255 billion. If we taxed them at 50% and 80% respectively, we could pay down the deficit in a few years and fund universal healthcare, maybe even free vocational education. That's a whopping 239 billion dollars in taxes!
Just to put your numbers on income into perspective, the top .1% make a collective 325 billion dollars a year on average and the top .01% make 255 billion. If we taxed them at 50% and 80% respectively, we could pay down the deficit in a few years and fund universal healthcare, maybe even free vocational education. That's a whopping 239 billion dollars in taxes!
No one is debating the math, they are debating the morality of it. There are people who honestly believe that some individuals generate so much value to society that they "deserve" to have 500 meter yachts with a staff of 75 just for when they feel like it, and those same people generally believe they will repeat that success at some level in the future, hence they don't want to dismantle the system.
Just to put your numbers on income into perspective, the top .1% make a collective 325 billion dollars a year on average and the top .01% make 255 billion. If we taxed them at 50% and 80% respectively, we could pay down the deficit in a few years and fund universal healthcare, maybe even free vocational education. That's a whopping 239 billion dollars in taxes!
Nah, we're f'd at this point.
Even at those rates, we're at ~$15trillion in debt. You won't cover that with a measly 239 billion a year, when our deficit is at $1.5trillion a year. All that would do is take us from $1.5trillion deficit, to what? $1.25trillion. Big whoop...
Note, I'm not saying this because I'm defending those people or something. Just that the idea won't work.
Personally? I say why tax them 50%? When someone steals your shit you roll in there and take it back. Should be 100%.
Even at those rates, we're at ~$15trillion in debt. You won't cover that with a measly 239 billion a year, when our deficit is at $1.5trillion a year. All that would do is take us from $1.5trillion deficit, to what? $1.25trillion. Big whoop...
Note, I'm not saying this because I'm defending those people or something. Just that the idea won't work.
Personally? I say why tax them 50%? When someone steals your shit you roll in there and take it back. Should be 100%.
I agree with your first sentence, but not with the rest.
The deficit is a non-issue. Germany and Japan have far higher debt to GDP ratios than the US, and they don't have the benefit of being the world reserve currency. If a benevolent fascist unicorn ruler were to swoop down tomorrow (and that's what it would require to reverse this death spiral of capitalism) they could add more to the debt to fund public work programs to repair the crumbling infrastructure of the US, generating millions of jobs, which would in turn put cash into the hands of consumers.
The same Unicorn Ceasar could implement a debt forgiveness program, nationalize the banks, and quickly return the per person debt levels to near zero without resulting in a rash of homelessness and bankrupty, to only the detriment of the ludicrously wealthy owning these financial institutions.
They could kill NAFTA and use protectionist policies to make outsourcing near impossible so that anyone wanting to manufacture goods and sell them in the US would have to do it inside the US rather than using 3rd world child labor.
This rainbow-man-god would also end all foreign wars, sink 19 or so of the 45 battleships, stop making billion dollar f-22s that can't even fly in the rain, and reduce defense spending to a reasonable level rather than a greater sum than the other 195 countries in the world combined.
Oh and also a universal healthcare plan that removes profit from the equation so the US can join the developed world in medical care, infant mortality and average life spans (which even narrowed to the richest americans is still shorter than the average Canadian/Icelander/German)
Then with a healthy debt-free society of 320 million, they could easily pay off the debt within a decade or two. The problem is that the second this magic incorruptible deity were to pass away, if capitalism as a system were left in place, this utopia would be a shithole again within 100 years as a select few managed to accumulate all the marbles once again.
Just to put your numbers on income into perspective, the top .1% make a collective 325 billion dollars a year on average and the top .01% make 255 billion. If we taxed them at 50% and 80% respectively, we could pay down the deficit in a few years and fund universal healthcare, maybe even free vocational education. That's a whopping 239 billion dollars in taxes!
And... they still remain billionaires, they still get to have all the rich boy toys, their kids still get to go to all of the elite schools without so much as a 2.0 GPA and their butler still gets to keep banging the maid on the imported marble counter tops.
Or we can look to the poor to pay "their fair share" and in doing so put millions of people out on the street, defund public education, put heathcare and housing outside of the reach of most Americans and watch society disintegrate into a post apocalyptic nightmare world, that makes Mogadishu look like Disneyland... all so the ultra rich can continue to enjoy ball busting earnings growth. Even if we took only what they made during the down turn and keep their fortunes at pre-down turn levels we would have enough to do most of what the country needs to do.
There's a point when you have so much cash that even if you tried to spend it, you couldn't. The people we're talking about taxing aren't lamenting in a downgrade of lifestyle, they're just caught always wanting more and the thought of loosing something even something you wouldn't notice missing, tears them apart.
Honestly I fall well within the 99% and I can stand to tighten my belt and pay a bit more in taxes. I'm willing to do that even though it means I do without some things I like doing. Now why is it that the ultra rich think they live above the mess they helped to create? I certainly didn't do anything to cause this mess but I'm willing to pitch in and help out, why is it they can't do the same?
Sorry to derail, but I saw this nifty site just now that has links to all the live streams of the different "Occupations". Thought some folks discussing this would find it interesting/informative
And... they still remain billionaires, they still get to have all the rich boy toys, their kids still get to go to all of the elite schools without so much as a 2.0 GPA and their butler still gets to keep banging the maid on the imported marble counter tops.
Or we can look to the poor to pay "their fair share" and in doing so put millions of people out on the street, defund public education, put heathcare and housing outside of the reach of most Americans and watch society disintegrate into a post apocalyptic nightmare world, that makes Mogadishu look like Disneyland... all so the ultra rich can continue to enjoy ball busting earnings growth. Even if we took only what they made during the down turn and keep their fortunes at pre-down turn levels we would have enough to do most of what the country needs to do.
There's a point when you have so much cash that even if you tried to spend it, you couldn't. The people we're talking about taxing aren't lamenting in a downgrade of lifestyle, they're just caught always wanting more and the thought of loosing something even something you wouldn't notice missing, tears them apart.
Honestly I fall well within the 99% and I can stand to tighten my belt and pay a bit more in taxes. I'm willing to do that even though it means I do without some things I like doing. Now why is it that the ultra rich think they live above the mess they helped to create? I certainly didn't do anything to cause this mess but I'm willing to pitch in and help out, why is it they can't do the same?
I don't disagree with you. It would be great if they would "take it like a man" and really took responsibility for the damage they cause. Though I think you forget that money buys you power over you fellow man who has much less and any money you make over what you can spend is just more power. That's the crux of it; they're power hungry and they can't stand loosing the money that grants them that power.
Replies
I could take 5 hours and hunt down the links for all the studies I've been quoting, but you've posted such horrible, poorly-informed opinions, I just don't trust any of that effort to change your mind, so I'm not going to bother. Especially since none of your posts have contained anything but hand waving. (considering I've already posted in this very thread about the 9.1% vs the real number of 16.5% from the actual US government).
I spend a lot of my time reading up on politics, history, and the state of the world. I sometimes paste good quotes or arguments into a text file for later use, but I'm not Noam Chomsky with a flawless rolodex of links to Lexus Nexus papers that I can call up at a momment's notice for internet doubters.
LOL, that is some @%#$^!@$ &%#$!
YEA BEN facts schmacts, where are the evidence lol ?
So lets try to limit it more information about what is actually taking place, and less with the heated back and forth type stuff.
That is because of the simple fact that real wages have been stagnating since the 70s. How can people continue with the increasing cost of basic necessities (transportation, housing, education, and medical costs have not been stagnating) without credit?
It's very easy to go "Personal accountability!!!" (not saying you are Pior) and cite people's use of credit and debt, but the vast majority of Americans have been offered very little choice in the matter. It's either go into debt at some point, or not pay for an emergency room visit, or have your car broken down to get to work, or no heat this month in the winter.
I think a lot of Polycounters forget that we are lucky to be in a much higher paid salary bracket than the majority of Americans. The median income in the US is 26,000 USD per person. I made a significant amount more than that at my first job as a junior artist, and my last US job was 3x the median. The last Gamasutra salary survey puts most animators and 3d artist at 2-3x the median income. The people we know are not a good sample to pull our ideas of what the "average American" is like economically.
Totally agree, that's a big part of it. The whole system ended up being designed that way, it's super sad to witness. I hope that the OWS crowd keeps that in mind, as I think this is the core of the issue.
$26,000/yr would be nice to have right now. I can't even find a job here that isn't skilled labor requiring licenses or specialized training. Retail is saturated here and so is food service. Everything else requires a Bachelor's or at least an Associate's. I've been looking since May, been on only four interviews (out of 40 job applications sent out), and none have called me back. To really make that stink, my wife and I are on the the hook for about 140K in college debt, another $6-7K of credit card debt (gotta buy groceries and fix the car somehow), and a car loan because my wife injured her back last year (had surgery) and had to give up her manual for an automatic. Oh, and I just became a father, so I feel bad that I can't provide for my child.
Before all this, I had a job, almost no debt, and I was doing fine. Then I decided I wanted to go to college and get into the game industry in 2006. Picked up a whole lot of debt for a degree that had no merit to the industry and I didn't even get to finish because I didn't qualify for any more loans. So I'm out of school, no recent job history, and a huge debt hanging over my head. I was better off without a college "education". Now they have the money, I have no degree, and I'm no closer to a job than I was before I started. Nobody ever teaches you about handling money in public school. They don't teach you how money works, because they don't know either, it's a secret and if people knew, they'd be at the banks with torches and pitchforks. I was completely unprepared for what I got in to and I wish to hell I could take it all back.
Was I ignorant? Yes. Did I make poor choices? Definitely, but the system preys on the ignorant and impulsive. They go out of their way to make sure most applicants are ignorant and make promises that they can't keep to give out loans they know we can't afford because the know the government will cover it if any default. Did I deserve to have my life destroyed just because I wanted to do better for myself? Hell no! I deserved to know the truth about what would happen if I wasn't successful.
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP337384456a7249c794f1db2b40ced47f.html
But this.. gives me hope that maybe the protests will gain some traction.. let's see what happens.
http://www.disinfo.com/2011/10/jp-morgan-chase-donates-4-6-million-to-nypd-on-eve-of-protests/
But the site,
http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Home/article/ny-13.htm?TB_iframe=true&height=580&width=850
Note the difference? Did Morgan change it or did these groups paraphrase what was on the page? I.E. Did this large donation come in this month or has it been trickling in since 2010.
Now, the people high in the command chain at the NYPD sub-consciously want to do more for these institutions giving them money. Then they perceive the protesters as being a threat to the institutions that donated.
It has a very direct influence on how the NYPD handles these situations I believe.
For me personally its less about getting the rich to pay their "fair share" even though they pay a lot less through loop holes and cap gains (where their money actually comes from). For me its more about limiting their influence in the political system. Right now people like the Koch brother, George Soros, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Karl Rove ect... they buy influence. They are allowed access to people who write the laws and they enact laws that are extremely biased in their favor and often override the greater good of the rest of the nation if not world. I honestly don't give a shit about taxes or balancing the budget.
This is about which system do you want to live in...
A democracy ruled by the people?
Where it can be semi-dysfunctional when elected officials forget their job is to compromise, but overwhelmingly works.
Or
A plutocracy ruled by a wealthy elite?
Where a small minority of people act out of self indulgence to the deteriorate of everyone around them.
So far every plutocracy has been overthrown, often violently after all other means have been exhausted. The plutocrats who have co-opted our system have a chance to return it to the people peacefully through simple reforms. They can avoid sending our nation over the edge and into a violent rebellion, or they can choose to go the way of EVERY past plutocracy... the choice is theirs. Continue being rich but do it in a fair and balanced way, or quite possibly have their mansions ransacked and forced to flee the country like in Tunisia and other fake democracies around the world.
big ass marine calling out the cops for being cowards
He gets right up to the line where they would of taken down any other person.
Notice they try to get the cameras and other people listening to him to move on when he's clearly staying put. They also geared up big time for a take down that never happened, I'm glad he kept his cool. One cop was close to pushing him over the line tho...
If only there where more people like him, well indeed there are they just don't make it on the news because they're ordinary people who normally can't afford to get that level of breathing space without being shut up, so for that, my hats off to him, well done.
I haven't been proud of the military ever, but in Sgt. Shamar Thomas I can take pride.
A nation cannot be built on credit. It's impossible.
If I am a bank and I loan $1 to someone. And then expect $2 back (because of credit interest). Where the FUCK is the other dollar coming from?
Afghanistan is America's longest war, and with no clear end in sight, who knows how much longer we'll be over there. What a fucking mess.
Thought this was neat: Facts stamped on $1 bills I hardly ever use cash, though.
That initial dollar doesn't exist, they created it literally from nothing. The bank didn't loan you money, it gave you a promise for money. You put up the thing you're buying as collateral (fraud, because you don't own it yet) and they promise you money that doesn't exist (Also fraud, because they don't have the money). If they didn't pull non-existent money out of their ass, backed by your promise to pay it back with your labor earnings, they would end up with all the money and it would be worthless to them.
You can't buy property, education, or transportation without a loan today. Those things cost too much because of easy credit. So when you do finally bite the credit bullet, you become a slave to your own debt.
Both of those are terrible solutions and would never work. Its easy to look at it and go oh the concept of credit is the problem, but that is very short sighted. Its not that loans/credit are inherently bad, its the type of loans and how they were/are handled that is the problem.
Do you see not being able to buy a home until you're 53 years old because you've saved enough cash to actually afford it as something that will increase upward mobility?
MOST People aren't saying everyone in that 1% is evil or corrupt, it's a metaphor. It's an idea and a way to illustrate the problem. Most is condemning people who have worked hard and made money the right way. And those who are, I believe are misinformed.
But you have to understand there is just as much (I would wager more) misinformation and ignorance on the other side, with the group of people saying things like:
There are too many people that come home, turn on Fox News and think they are an authority on world news, politics, and economics, when they don't really understand a large portion of what's REALLY going on.
Or just make fraud actually illegal.
They loan out each one dollar they have ten times. I don't see why it's legitimate to loan out fake money. The reserve ratio needs to be 1:1
The idea of loans/credit isn't the problem, it's when they are used within a system of capitalism, because since the banks are private, they have an incentive to make a profit. They do this by charging you much more than the actual utility they are providing you, so they can extract the excess value for stock profits CEO bonuses, etc. Once they accumulate enough, they can then bribe the legislative branch to increase the credit card percentage rate (seriously the US's maximum allowed interest rate is illegal in most developed nations, and was even outlawed in the Bible and Qur'an, it's called Usury when it's that high), allow hidden charges or to rearrange your charges to maximize overdraft fees, pay-day loan branches, etc etc etc etc ETC!!
There is a way to make loans and offer credit without this happening, but it's called nationalized banks, and that's an anathema to America, because it would ruin bank profits, and goes against the decades of propaganda efforts by the 1% to demonize anything state owned to the other 99%.
here he is whipping the shit out of some bankers. slave trader style.
You can't make profitable loans without either draining the money supply dry (which makes the currency worthless) or creating it out of nothing, thus cheating the borrower (by not actually having the money they loan out, because it's only a promise to pay). And the fact that they don't actually have the money they promise you is just simply fraud. The only way to loan money is without interest and 100% reserve.
The way they work is like this: You ask me to loan you my hammer, but instead of providing an actual hammer, I give you a promise of a hammer and, in turn, you owe me an actual hammer, plus interest. I've given you nothing but a debt and demand you pay me back plus interest on top of that. That's exactly what banks do. But worse than that, even though they've provided nothing in the contract, they get to take your actual property if you default. How is that right? How is that sustainable? It's a system that leeches on the labor of honest working people without producing one bit of real wealth in the process. As in resources, services, property, and products. What's what real wealth is. They use this power to create money to buy off our government and tilt the law in their favor while making it harder to get by without credit. When we can't get by without credit, we become dependent on it, which is great for them because you'll keep coming back for more debt slavery.
"Do you see not being able to buy a home until you're 53 years old because you've saved enough cash to actually afford it as something that will increase upward mobility?"
You're using hyperbole and speaking from ignorance, I'm afraid. It is because of this money system that it's impossible to buy a house without a loan. It's the source of the problem, not the solution.
Right right, I agree with all of that, but reading Greevar's post you'd think it was the basic concept of loans, and people applying for loans that were the root of the problem. Seriously, I'm committing fraud because I have a mortgage?
I wasn't accusing borrowers of fraud, they don't even know they're doing it. The banks are wholly to blame, they created a system based on committing fraud.
The wording is pretty confusing there, if thats the case.
I fail to see how taxing the top 1% connects to any of that.
I was under the impression the point of taxing the top 1% was because our national debt is now growing faster than our GDP (which has to do with a LOT more than just bailouts and stimulus) and the best way to control it without putting the elderly on an iceflow is to tax the wealthiest people in America because they're in the best position to pay for it.
The overwhelming majority of the people in the top 1% are not bankers, if the object here is some kind of economic justice for the people who caused the financial meltdown then people have picked the wrong targets.
Not my best writing, I admit. But the bank is creating all the fraud and implicating you in it as well. The system is fraud.
In short, the 1% exploits the public infrastructure to make their massive income and cheats the rest of us out of our rights and the fruits of our labor in the process.
Wait, you do understand the definition of "implicating" right? So what is it, am I committing fraud or am I not?
Ganemi You're missing the point ENTIRELY.
ALL money comes from the Federal reserve which is given to the banks with a tax. Then all money that comes down to the people from the Banks gets taxed.
But if all money comes from the Federal Reserve then the 'TAX' is asking for money that comes from NOWHERE. So you will ALWAYS have more debt than money? How hard is that to understand?
Technically, you're committing fraud, but the bank set it up that way and got it legalized. You're being defrauded into a fraud by signing that loan.
Words like "exploits" and "cheats" really turn me off to the Occupy cause. I believe that some people at the top of the economic food chain do that, using every edge their money affords them to make more money, but I also believe that some people bust their ass, putting the elbow grease behind good ideas and earn every cent of it.
I hate the blanket targeting an arbitrary group rather than the underlying problems. Looking at US income for 2010, the top 1%'s average income was $380,354. That's a lot, but it's not Rockefeller money - certainly the game industry has its own one-percenters. I'm sure John Carmack or Cliff Bleszinski pull that much in, they drive cars worth that much. I doubt any Polycounter is willing to accuse them of exploiting the public infrastructure to get rich and cheating us out of the fruits of our labor.
The problem isn't that some people make a shitload of money, but that the system has loopholes that let people duck their obligations. Making a million bucks a year doesn't mean you're screwing anyone over, just as you don't have to be a one-percenter to take advantage of exploits in capital gains taxes.
Seems pretty devious to me.
1. Reinstall reinstate the Glass Gteagall Act.
2. Install political donation rules baring corporations from donating versus people, and all donations must be made public and cannot be beyond a certain dollar amount per year based on current living standards. (So instead of saying only $1000 a year, it will rise and fall with economy)
3. Install term limitations for all members of congress. So we have people doing there jobs versus continually attempting to be reelected.
4. (This would be difficult). Rewrite the rules to no longer allow corporations to be "legal persons".
On the wallstreet side of things. This is harder and more about creating a new system of corporations. Instead of the bottom line being creating the LARGEST (i.e. whatever it takes to get the most) returns for the shareholders as the largest priority. Keeping the company in business, the employees, and then finally getting the shareholders a fair return versus a over maximized one. This will make them less like cancers growing uncontrollable and continually borrowing for revenue as they give so much to shareholders. Instead then looking long term.
Personally, thats not enough, and would like to see the whole system turned into employee only shares and co-ops. But thats what compromise is about.
I don't really understand what's going on with those numbers. Everyone keeps bringing up different numbers, and I can't tell what's what anymore. What's your source for that $380,354 number? Not saying it's wrong, I'd just like to see the source.
The most popular study for that seems to be this one that claims:
That's talking about people bringing in $1.3million a year. Much different than $380k.
Both of those numbers don't really make sense to me. We know there are people who make several times that just in bonuses.
You see whopping numbers like $15million a year even in our industry.
So those numbers from the studies have to either be BS, or maybe they count pure income, excluding certain things like bonus checks or what have you. Or that the top 1% are so fucking good at hiding what they earn, that we're under the impression that the richest people in the US make only several hundred thousands a year.
But something's up with all those numbers. The top 1%, the ones who own the military industrial complex, they're billionaires and maybe even trillionaires. There's no way they make just a couple hundred thousands a year. No way I'm buying that.
You should also be careful about those income figures. Those are reported income figures so you sure as hell know that the people making the 6-7 figure reported salaries get taxed up the anus. But the reported income tax is quite a bit different than net earnings for some of these guys. As there are many idiots wanting to tax the "rich", I think some of the more informed people understand that there are the rich who contribute to the economy and sleazebags.
I think Warren Buffet pays himself only 100K but is worth billions. Although I think he remarked about being taxed too little.
There's a line that's being blurred here that determines who the 1% is and many are misrepresenting it on both sides of the argument and too many are focusing on it. The 1% that people are enraged about are the millionaires that use the financial system to make money from the debt of the common citizen without adding anything to the wealth of the nation (basically, we do all the work, they collect the interest on our labor). These people ran the banks and investment firms and some were investors themselves. They create their money by exploiting legal loopholes created by them and their rich friends to benefit the top 1%.
There are entire corporations that intently and knowingly abuse the people and the earth to make their profits. They use their huge capital supply to buy laws that favor the type of business they want to do. They're not necessarily evil, but they certainly aren't compassionate to the welfare of their stakeholders (stakeholders are people affected by the actions of a business, not to be confused with shareholders).
Corporations need to be rolled back to what they were before Santa Clara Co. vs Southern Pacific Railroad. That is, they have a limited life span of 10 or 30 years. They cannot own other corporations. They cannot act outside of their chartered mandate to serve the public good and they cannot interfere in or fund politics. In exchange for these limitations, the shareholders are free of liability and can share in the profit of the company providing more capital for the company than a privately own business is capable of. Once the charter is expired or void, the company is no longer a corporation and it's shareholders are liable for it's actions. That's the way it was set up and that's the way it should be again. A corporation is just too destructive to be let loose on the market without restrictions.
You admit to being uninformed, yet you claim to know better than anyone else what's going on than the people who have been watching this scam for years? That makes it merely your opinion and your argument has no merit. If you don't know the details about the issue don't pretend to be able to pass judgement on the complaints of the people who do.
http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/
Most of the ire is directed toward the wealthy, and Wall street, and since the average Wall street trader makes 600k a year, well that puts them squarely in the 1%.
Fixed it for you. Business owners are exploiting their workers when they keep excess value created. They don't deserve the vast majority of the profits. While Carmack and Jobs are indeed cases of brilliant minds, there are plenty of CEOs are just well connected business folks that schlubbed their way into the job (Meg Whitman anyone?). We the workers bust butt to make billion dollar profits and get a fraction of the profit, while the owners of the company who put in far less hours of labor than we do get paid 5-10x as much. I know plenty of people imagine that one day that will be them up there, so they have no problem with the system, but the vast majority of us will be laborers till the day we die and would benefit far more from being paid fairly for the product we generate. Not so some Publisher putz-faces can profit off our hard labor with an actual skillset and years of training the current developer most likely didn't pay for.
Ok, but the top .1% average 2,5 million a year and there are 130k of them, The top .01% average 17 million a year, and there are 15k of them. There are not that many captains of industry curing cancer and inventing hovercars. This doesn't even take into account that economists know, without a doubt, that in non-manual-labor jobs, more money actual creates worse performance, so this incentive bullshit is exactly that, bull and shit. Watch this very easy to understand Youtube if you were unaware of this basic fact of human psychology.
[ame="
And with your second paragraph, you are trying to divorce two things that are impossible to separate. As long as individuals are allowed to accumulate obscene wealth, they will corrupt the system. That is how it works. That is why it's happening again, even though we as a society disassembled Feudalism hundreds of years ago. Capital seeks to entrench itself, no matter the barriers. So it does actually matter that there are single people earning millions of dollars (or euros), because what will always follow is those people using their money to corrupt the system. One or two will certainly maintain their morals in the face of corruption, but they are outliers, exceptions don't disprove a rule. That's *on top* of the fact that not a single person on earth generates millions of dollars of value through purely their own hard work and effort. Even the future inventor of the AIDS vaccine will be building on decades of medical research subsidized by the state and used tax-payer assets in building themselves as a person.
*edit* oh and if I worked for id or epic, I would absolutely accuse Carmack or Bleszinski of cheating me out of the fruits of my labor. Both of them put in a lot of effort, probably at least two, maybe three times as much as I would as a 3d artist, but their take home pay is many multiples of that, and the games are a product of the entire team. If they were by themselves in an office they'd have nothing.
Pretty much this. Harry Hallaway CEO of Humana makes millions of dollars a year and owns 11 freaking mansions. He's just a CEO, imagine the people we don't know about and what they make.
Most CEO's of top level companies make around 400-500 times what their lowest level employees make compared to 40 years ago, then they made roughly 20 times that while average worker wages have hardly risen since 1970. Every year there is less and less for us and it all gets centralized to the 1%. People talk about "trickle down" economics. Well, it's not. It's actually a "geyser up" economy. The richest people should be paying more taxes than the majority, much more. They use the same infrastructure we do and our labor to get paid 500X more than the hourly employee. No, if they make 500X more than we do with the same public services and utilities, they should be paying at least 50% in taxes, more for those making 10 million and it should go up from there. Nobody making 1.3 million per year should have any trouble giving up 650K in taxes to fund the infrastructure and services they use to make that kind of money. If you're making 10 million and you're taxed at 80% for example, you're still making two-freaking-million-dollars a year net income.
Just to clarify this, the number is 475x, and it's true *only* of the US. Venezuela is the next highest inequality and it's only 70x. German and Japanese companies only have 30-50x pay discrepancies, and we can all see that plenty of German and Japanese companies are run just as well if not better than their American counterparts. Why is it they can find qualified CEOs without paying them dump-trucks full of gold bouillon? Oh, it's because most CEO pay in the US is determined by the board of trustees, which is an incestuous circle jerk where the CEO of Kraft sits on the board of Coca Cola, and the CEO of Coca-cola sits on the board of Johnson and Johnson, and they all have a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" agreement. This is the natural result of cronyism, nepotism, capitalism. It's no surprise. I only point out the fact that this proves it's not required to pay a CEO 30 million dollars for them to run their car company into the ground, when Japan manages to get a 2 million a year CEO to run a successful one. Incentive based pay above the base-line living wage is a total myth.
Sixty-seven percent of those who responded to a Quinnipiac University survey said they agreed with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, who are upset that banks were allowed to earn huge profits after being bailed out during the recession, while average Americans remained under financial strain.
An even wider margin, 87 percent, agreed with the protesters' right to camp out in Lower Manhattan, as long as they obeyed the law. The movement began staging rallies more than a month ago.
Just to put your numbers on income into perspective, the top .1% make a collective 325 billion dollars a year on average and the top .01% make 255 billion. If we taxed them at 50% and 80% respectively, we could pay down the deficit in a few years and fund universal healthcare, maybe even free vocational education. That's a whopping 239 billion dollars in taxes!
No one is debating the math, they are debating the morality of it. There are people who honestly believe that some individuals generate so much value to society that they "deserve" to have 500 meter yachts with a staff of 75 just for when they feel like it, and those same people generally believe they will repeat that success at some level in the future, hence they don't want to dismantle the system.
Nah, we're f'd at this point.
Even at those rates, we're at ~$15trillion in debt. You won't cover that with a measly 239 billion a year, when our deficit is at $1.5trillion a year. All that would do is take us from $1.5trillion deficit, to what? $1.25trillion. Big whoop...
Note, I'm not saying this because I'm defending those people or something. Just that the idea won't work.
Personally? I say why tax them 50%? When someone steals your shit you roll in there and take it back. Should be 100%.
I agree with your first sentence, but not with the rest.
The deficit is a non-issue. Germany and Japan have far higher debt to GDP ratios than the US, and they don't have the benefit of being the world reserve currency. If a benevolent fascist unicorn ruler were to swoop down tomorrow (and that's what it would require to reverse this death spiral of capitalism) they could add more to the debt to fund public work programs to repair the crumbling infrastructure of the US, generating millions of jobs, which would in turn put cash into the hands of consumers.
The same Unicorn Ceasar could implement a debt forgiveness program, nationalize the banks, and quickly return the per person debt levels to near zero without resulting in a rash of homelessness and bankrupty, to only the detriment of the ludicrously wealthy owning these financial institutions.
They could kill NAFTA and use protectionist policies to make outsourcing near impossible so that anyone wanting to manufacture goods and sell them in the US would have to do it inside the US rather than using 3rd world child labor.
This rainbow-man-god would also end all foreign wars, sink 19 or so of the 45 battleships, stop making billion dollar f-22s that can't even fly in the rain, and reduce defense spending to a reasonable level rather than a greater sum than the other 195 countries in the world combined.
Oh and also a universal healthcare plan that removes profit from the equation so the US can join the developed world in medical care, infant mortality and average life spans (which even narrowed to the richest americans is still shorter than the average Canadian/Icelander/German)
Then with a healthy debt-free society of 320 million, they could easily pay off the debt within a decade or two. The problem is that the second this magic incorruptible deity were to pass away, if capitalism as a system were left in place, this utopia would be a shithole again within 100 years as a select few managed to accumulate all the marbles once again.
Or we can look to the poor to pay "their fair share" and in doing so put millions of people out on the street, defund public education, put heathcare and housing outside of the reach of most Americans and watch society disintegrate into a post apocalyptic nightmare world, that makes Mogadishu look like Disneyland... all so the ultra rich can continue to enjoy ball busting earnings growth. Even if we took only what they made during the down turn and keep their fortunes at pre-down turn levels we would have enough to do most of what the country needs to do.
There's a point when you have so much cash that even if you tried to spend it, you couldn't. The people we're talking about taxing aren't lamenting in a downgrade of lifestyle, they're just caught always wanting more and the thought of loosing something even something you wouldn't notice missing, tears them apart.
Honestly I fall well within the 99% and I can stand to tighten my belt and pay a bit more in taxes. I'm willing to do that even though it means I do without some things I like doing. Now why is it that the ultra rich think they live above the mess they helped to create? I certainly didn't do anything to cause this mess but I'm willing to pitch in and help out, why is it they can't do the same?
http://occupystreams.org/
Wow, its incredible
I don't disagree with you. It would be great if they would "take it like a man" and really took responsibility for the damage they cause. Though I think you forget that money buys you power over you fellow man who has much less and any money you make over what you can spend is just more power. That's the crux of it; they're power hungry and they can't stand loosing the money that grants them that power.