78 replies to this topic

[Waser Lave]

Sign this

http://www.avaaz.org...all_st/?cAHssbb

Won't make a difference, online petitions never do.

[Freshx]

Sign this

http://www.avaaz.org...all_st/?cAHssbb

I love how most of the people signing it are from the UK, France & Sweden not even the US itself.

[Dunvegan]

I agree with Random with this one, and I am also nowhere near wealthy - our household income is only slightly above the "poverty" line.

I do agree that there is a huge disparity between the amount of money that the 1% has compared to the rest of us, however there isn't much of a way to remove the power that they have unless we totally revamp our government and make it a total, direct democracy. Truth is, money talks and money is power. This has been true since Roman times and possibly earlier still. It's not just the way of the United States.

Do I like the disproportionate amount of money between the one percent and us, and the power that the one percent has? No. I would love to change the amount of power that they have. But to do that we first have to change our government from a representative republic to a direct democracy, so then everyone's voice is truly equal and money really has little say in anything. Whether or not that would be the best course for the country is not what I'm debating, so please don't bash me for that.

[supertrap]

People find tax loopholes, they exist. I honestly don't think those should be changed either. I don't really agree with companies like Google and GE that practice tax avoision strategies; they should definitely be taxed and the loopholes that they use should be limited.

Loopholes?

Have you ever filed for taxes?

Everyone uses all the loopholes that exist for them. Thats why most people who can qualify for any sort of tax "loopholes" hire someone to proffesionally look for them. Granted some might not find ALL of them but they find most of them. The problem is, all the loopholes are being given to the Super rich. Not the guy who worked hard his whole life and now makes 100k a year or even 250k a year, the tax breaks are given to the people who make 100million+. Before reagan the super rich paid up to 80% in taxes, cause they could afford to. That took pressure off the middle class, and in result people paid their houses off and sent their kids to college. Now all the pressure is off the people who can handle it and its put on the single mom working 2 jobs to feed their kids. So now people rely on high interest credit cards and sub prime loans.

My aunt had a stroke when she had he second child. She is on disability. Her douchbag husband left her. She used to be able to get free healthcare for both her kids and herself. Now the government is broke because it no longer has the 80% of the billionaires money and says that my aunts social security plus the 500 a month she gets in child support is to much to get free healthcare. She cant afford her own health care, so when my little cousin decided to tell us about how a few years ago her friends father molested her and thats why she hasnt been taking showers for years and been a complete loaner with bad grades when she used to be a model student, my aunt couldn't get her to a councilor right away. This is a woman that worked for 27 years of her life, paying taxes, then had shit luck who is paying the cost. I'm not saying tax buffet 80%. But I'm saying Id rather tax him more than cut the budget for things like healthcare and education. Buffet could afford a tax increase, but social programs can't. Hence why our country is going to the dogs.

Edited by supertrap, 13 October 2011 - 03:55 AM.

[Dunvegan]

I'm very sorry to hear the story of your aunt and cousin. Please don't take this personally - I'd like to keep this a calm debate, if possible.

As for your loophole idea, I think you may be thinking more of tax breaks when it comes to us plebeians, not necessarily loopholes. There are many loopholes, it seems, for larger corporations, and nobody seems willing to cinch these holes up to making it harder for evasion of certain taxes. Again, this relates to money being as powerful (and corrupting) as it is, but that is the world in which we live.

The highest rate of income tax was 94% in 1944 - but compare that to the 41% income tax at the lowest end of the spectrum and you see a very large difference between then and now. Everybody was taxed heavily, and now it's not so much. Yes, the obscenely rich are taxed at 33%, but the lowest end of the spectrum is at 10%. Take from that what you will.

Economics has three different issues relating to taxes. The one that relates most closely to this debate is the idea that taxing the rich makes one less likely to want to be rich, and so there is less incentive to earn money, which means that there is less income to tax and the government loses out on money potentially earned. I am not arguing mathematics, but this is something that is pushed forward in economics, and it is the way people can think of these matters.

Whether or not taxing the rich more will solve all the problems can be debated: first we should look towards frivolous spending and pork-barrel idiocies and get rid of them. But this digresses from the topic at hand.

[luvsmyncis]

Now the government is broke because it no longer has the 80% of the billionaires money and says that my aunts social security plus the 500 a month she gets in child support is to much to get free healthcare.

The government is broke because we spend too much money. Cutting back on Tricare, Medicaid, and Medicare is harsh, in my opinion, but necessary. Tricare patients used to pay $3 a month for generic medications. This month it has gone up to $5. I don't think that it is an unreasonable increase, but every single solider I've dispensed medication to has bitched and complained to me about it. Basically, everyone is crying about cutting spending, and moaning about the deficit, but nobody wants to change anything in their own life to remedy the problem. Take it out on the rich! - say the poor. Take it out of wellfare! - say the rich.

Americans are such entitled, selfish, whiny-ass lazy motherfuckers. And even though I would help out anyone I possibly could, I still fucking hate you all.

[supertrap]

The government is broke because we spend too much money.

We would have more money to spend if we taxed the rich more. Just like they did before the 70's

Its black and white.

As for your loophole idea, I think you may be thinking more of tax breaks when it comes to us plebeians, not necessarily

tax breaks, loopholes whatever you want to call it. Doesnt matter. I said loophole cause thats the term random used, the person I quoted in my postO_o

Rich people will still be rich if they are taxed more.
The middle class becomes poverty if you expect them to carry the load.
We are not in this much debt because of medicare.


IF WE HAVE MORE MONEY COMING IN THEN WE WOULD NOT NEED TO CUT SOCIAL PROGRAMS.
BUT WHAT WE COULD DO IS SAVE TRILLIONS BY NOT OCCUPYING COUNTRIES FOR 10 YEARS. BUT THAT WOULD MEAN NOT SPENDING THOSE TRILLIONS ON LOCKHEED AND MARTIN AND HALIBURTON. EXACTLY THE PEOPLE WE SHOULD BE TAXING MORE.

common sense.
But just like the phony war on drugs, reagan had the richest americans in mind when he started the tax cuts for the super rich. Not the american people.


All the remnants of the new deal are gone. All the hard work the unions fought is diminished. It is now the standard to sell our labor at $7 an hour and be happy with it. Its disgusting.

[Dunvegan]

Technically, you could take away ALL of the money from ALL big business in the U.S and we would still be 10 trillion in debt. My friend (an economist) was trying to reason with the people at the protests and they called him a nazi... lol
It's kind of funny because nazis were socialists which is basically what these people "want" .... lulz. I seriously don't think taking shits on police cars and calling people nazis will make anyone take these people seriously.

Sorry, I take an interest in history and had to correct this. Nazi's were strongly against socialism. They /hated/ it. The Russians were socialists under Stalin. Really, at the end of the day, there was little to no difference between the two leaders - both killed huge numbers of people to get what they wanted.

We would have more money to spend if we taxed the rich more. Just like they did before the 70's

Its black and white.



tax breaks, loopholes whatever you want to call it. Doesnt matter. I said loophole cause thats the term random used, the person I quoted in my postO_o

IF WE HAVE MORE MONEY COMING IN THEN WE WOULD NOT NEED TO CUT SOCIAL PROGRAMS.
BUT WHAT WE COULD DO IS SAVE TRILLIONS BY NOT OCCUPYING COUNTRIES FOR 10 YEARS. BUT THAT WOULD MEAN NOT SPENDING THOSE TRILLIONS ON LOCKHEED AND MARTIN AND HALIBURTON. EXACTLY THE PEOPLE WE SHOULD BE TAXING MORE.

common sense.

All the remnants of the new deal are gone. All the hard work the unions fought is diminished. It is now the standard to sell our labor at $7 an hour and be happy with it. Its disgusting.

Tax break are not loopholes. A loophole is a way to avoid being taxed, whereas a tax break is something written in tax laws that allows you to pay less. One is in the gray area of morality, while the other is totally fine.

Lastly, bringing in more money will not entirely solve the dilemma that we find ourselves in. Our government already grossly overspends on everything - bringing in more money is essentially inviting them to pay more for things we don't need. If you want to take an isolationists stand on the United States, then that would solve the issue of invading/squatting in other countries - we wouldn't. We would be solely on our own with little to no interest in the outside world. This could solve some economic troubles, as with the isolationist view we would probably be more interested in buying American-made products, which would be a huge boost to the economy and help bring revenue in.

Social programs are well and good, but they are sorely broken and do not help the people that they need to be helping. I know far too many people in my neighborhood are using their "social program" money to pay for drugs or the Mercedes that they have in their driveway, despite the fact that they have no job and their house is falling apart.

Receiving more money is not the only solution. We have to fix what's broken - the US spending habits - first before we can take another step. We need to decide what the role of government is, too: is it there to protect us from foreign hands only? Are they supposed to coddle its people? Are they there to keep the states from infighting?

The problems we have are not so black-and-white as many would like to think. There is not one easy solution that will magically solve the problem. The government is broken as it is, and it must be fixed...and the people need to decide how to fix it. We have a protest going on, sure...but they haven't really offered up a real, viable solution (as far as I'm aware, though I haven't paid much attention to what's going on).

Oh, and Unions...Unions are a mess. I refuse to accept that a man who does nothing but screw in a screw on a single part, and is expected to do this fifty times in one day and then is allowed to rest and watch movies for the remainder of their shift, should be paid $32 an hour. My entire family works in Unions. Their pay is disgusting, especially considering what little work they do. Nobody wants to hire Union workers because they get paid so ridiculously. Yes, the Unions were originally good, but somewhere along the line they got messed up.

Edited by Dunvegan, 13 October 2011 - 04:11 PM.

[Waser Lave]

Sorry, I take an interest in history and had to correct this. Nazi's were strongly against socialism. They /hated/ it. The Russians were socialists under Stalin. Nazi's were under the National Communist party. Really, at the end of the day, there was little to no difference between the two leaders - both killed huge numbers of people to get what they wanted.

You're making the mistake of confusing the word 'socialism' with left-wing politics. The Nazis were a National Socialist party but it was right-wing socialism rather than left-wing socialism which meant that they placed a lot of emphasis on aspects such as social integration and opposed things like individualism which are prevalent in capitalist systems.

[supertrap]

Yes, the Unions were originally good, but somewhere along the line they got messed up.

Never said They were always good.
Talking about the new deal times. Did you even read what I posted?


Not gunna bother responding to the rest of your post. Cant argue with someone who argues semantics. Loopholes and tax breaks. LOL
If a loophole was not legal like a tax break then we wouldn't be able to get away with it.
and I ssay again. I used loophole cause thats what the person I was quoting used.

Edited by supertrap, 13 October 2011 - 03:43 PM.

[Dunvegan]

You're making the mistake of confusing the word 'socialism' with left-wing politics. The Nazis were a National Socialist party but it was right-wing socialism rather than left-wing socialism which meant that they placed a lot of emphasis on aspects such as social integration and opposed things like individualism which are prevalent in capitalist systems.

Ah, sorry, botched that up. Fascism is what I was looking for, not communist. They were part of the "Socialist" party, in a way, but they practiced fascism. In my haste I didn't reread what I posted and made myself look like an idiot. Lesson learned!

Talking about the new deal times. Did you even read what I posted?

Not gunna bother responding to the rest of your post. Cant argue with someone who argues semantics. Loopholes and tax breaks. LOL
If a loophole was not legal like a tax break then we wouldn't be able to get away with it.../../public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif
and I ssay again. I used loophole cause thats what the person I was quoting used.

I did read what you said, but there seemed, to me, to be a discrepancy between the discussion of the how the work of the Unions had been diminished and how we sell labor at $7, since Unions sell their work at a much, much higher price. Whatever you meant was lost on me, apparently.

Anyway, never said a loophole was illegal. Just a loophole. It's in the gray area of morality, like I said. This sorta explains it a bit more: http://www.wisegeek....ax-loophole.htm

But this doesn't really matter and, yes, it is semantics, I suppose...but feel free to ignore my whole post, if you wish.

Edited by Dunvegan, 13 October 2011 - 04:19 PM.

[Melchoire]

I go on reddit, so yeah I hear about it constantly.

To be perfectly honest, imo nothing will happen. Empty promises will be made by 2012 candidates, people will buy it and the cycle will inevitably repeat.

E: to clarify this isn't like other revolutions or movements like for Civil rights. In those ones the ones holding power had nothing to lose from giving women or black people equal rights. In this case the politicians control everything and it's in their best interest to play nice with the corporations.

[Joanna]

I just hope it actually gets us somewhere. I feel like they will make a statement but thats it.... I feel like nothing will actually come of it. Which is sad.

[Elindoril]

KMFDM made a song for this.

Whee.

[luvsmyncis]

E: to clarify this isn't like other revolutions or movements like for Civil rights. In those ones the ones holding power had nothing to lose from giving women or black people equal rights. In this case the politicians control everything and it's in their best interest to play nice with the corporations.

I'm sure the people in power felt like they had a lot to lose before they gave women and blacks rights. There was a lot to lose when slavery was abolished. There's a lot a man can lose when a woman has a voice. There are a lot of jobs lost to Hispanics who will work for cheap. People still feel like it's a threat to grant homosexuals equal rights.

KMFDM made a song for this.
Whee.

Yay!
This is the perfectly peppy little diddy they need to blast in the street during a peaceful demonstration.

[Elindoril]

Yay!
This is the perfectly peppy little diddy they need to blast in the street during a peaceful demonstration.

That's exactly what I was thinking, it'll help liven those boring protests up a bit.

[sLAUGHTER]

I was in NY yesterday, took the PATH and saw a guy with a generic "We are the 99%" sign. I was doing other things though. Couldn't go protest.

[Melchoire]

I'm sure the people in power felt like they had a lot to lose before they gave women and blacks rights. There was a lot to lose when slavery was abolished. There's a lot a man can lose when a woman has a voice. There are a lot of jobs lost to Hispanics who will work for cheap. People still feel like it's a threat to grant homosexuals equal rights.

The changes OWS is asking for are very drastic compared to what civil and women's right activists were protesting for. Giving black people the right to vote didn't mean anything to the corporate figureheads because they knew only a small majority of them would end up voting in the future and even then they were just voting for the same politicians who would've been perfectly happy keeping their rights from them if they didn't create a commotion about it.

So what I'm trying to say is the corporations know if OWS has their way they're done for. And think about it 99% of the money vs. the 1%...the odds aren't very good.

[Shampoo]

And think about it 99% of the money vs. the 1%...the odds aren't very good.

so corporations win? good, let's all move along then

[Melchoire]

so corporations win? good, let's all move along then

Far be it for me to tell millions of revolutionaries what to do from behind a computer, I commend their efforts. I'm just saying realistically the odds are against them and in all likelihood nothing long term will come to fruition with the way they're protesting. No real revolution was successful without the loss of a few lives.

Think of it this way, if I was a wall street exec. all I would see is a whole lot of protesters doing nothing aside from "occupying" a street. What am I supposed to do? Change my entire company's business strategy because of them?

[blacktar]

occupy oakland (california) just got tear gassed and beat the fuck down by police last night. was pretty cool to see our rights getting violated first hand!

[Frizzle]

occupy oakland (california) just got tear gassed and beat the fuck down by police last night. was pretty cool to see our rights getting violated first hand!

Nah, you guys just don't know how to protest legally/peacefully.

Grow the fuck up and get a job.

[Abradix]

Nah, you guys just don't know how to protest legally/peacefully.

Grow the fuck up and get a job.

Since you aren't an American I don't expect you to be as enraged as many of us here are that these fascist cops have trampled our right to free speech, our right to assembly, and our right to redress of grievances. The protesters did nothing illegal...And the rampant brutality is doing nothing but adding fuel to the fire.

Much like the group of women in NY who got fenced in and soaked with pepper spray. The police are the ones in the wrong, though I guess I can see why you're biased.

Get a job? Gee, thanks for exhibiting that you have no clue what the California economy is like...

Like I stated in the other OWS thread, opportunity=/=handout.

EDIT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqNOPZLw03Q
This is what a police state looks like. Its time to break the law... Once and for all.

Edited by Abradix, 26 October 2011 - 01:13 PM.