Cracked: The Occupy Wallstreet Generation

SVreX wrote: I agree. Let's lock up the politicians who screwed things up. The loosening of the lending practices was directly connected to the (then) administration's desire to increase homeownership among a large percentage of people who could not afford it. The derivatives developed as a way to spread the risk associated with these lending practices. It was an enormous scheme to grab votes by politicians, which was facilitated by businesses in accordance with the Federal lending guidelines. Don't blame the people (businesses) who cooperated with the goals of the administration.

Great. I like that idea. Hold the bastards accountable and tighten up the laws that are stupid.

I do think we should evaluate the internal practices of the business leaders. I know what they did was greedy and put short-term profit over the stability of other people's money they were responsible for. (Things like bonuses that rewarded their workers for selling loans that weren't viable.) I think there is a strong chance that was also illegal. If it wasn't illegal, they won't suffer too badly.

I do not think a CEO of any company getting a huge public bailout should be given a big bonus with bailout money. I think if you screwed up your company enough that tax payer money had to keep you afloat, the tax payers should now be part owners in that company, or something like that.

Salanis wrote: No. They pay 50% greater Federal Income taxes than their proportion of the population. When other taxes are accounted for (State Income Tax, Sales, Property, etc.) their burden comes into pretty close to their proportion of the population. No, it is not exactly the same proportion. But it's not as crazy out of balance as people like to say. These are also people with a lot greater capacity to pay and still live comfortably.

So say you.

But you are fabricating the numbers.

The 50% reference in Carolla's statement was a reference to CA taxpayers. He didn't say whether he was referring to Federal taxes or state taxes.

You are claiming a VERY SPECIFIC explanation for the discrepancy which includes a combined reading of various sources and blending the numbers from both Federal and states. But you have provided ZERO data to support the claim.

If you'd like to do the math that way, please provide the source information. It was clearly NOT referred to, and unlikely to ever have been considered the way in which you are trying to justify it.

I'll happily reconsider my position if you provide actual information showing what you are claiming, instead of fabricating statistics to support it.

In reply to SVreX:

How dare you agree with me, you shiny happy person?!? I'm right, and you're wrong. If you agree with me, that means we're both wrong!

SVreX wrote: The 50% reference in Carolla's statement was a reference to CA taxpayers. He didn't say whether he was referring to Federal taxes or state taxes.

Oh geez, now we're just referring to people in CA. I don't have access to his statistics to evaluate them, nor do I have any more energy to bother looking them up. I think this is all a case of "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics."

I'm done for now. This is just too much. The impact will be greater on my blood pressure than on anything actually substantive.

I guess my ultimate point is that there are two sides in this big debate, and I don't believe either of them is wholly right or wholly wrong. I think our country has problems that we need to fix. I think people are more worried about being right (or about the other guys being wrong) than they are about making things better.

Salanis wrote: I do not think a CEO of any company getting a huge public bailout should be given a big bonus with bailout money

Unfortunately, if that bonus was in his contract, it may be binding and there is nothing that can be done about it.

It may suck but it may be the law.

In reply to Salanis:

I am not suggesting you focus on anything about CA. I am suggesting you be consistent in what you are referring to.

Carolla's statement (about 1% paying 50%) was about CA.

You are claiming it is legitimate. But you are shifting between articles, and including or excluding the impact of the states at will to fit your argument.

Show it. In ANY state, or in the Fed.

I think it is a gross exaggeration to suggest that the 1% earns 50% of the income, and should therefore pay 50% of the taxes. Nothing in my logic says that is even close to true. But I am willing to be proven wrong. If it is true, show it in a way that makes the slightest amount of sense so I can try to agree with you. If it is not (which is my current opinion), then please don't fabricate numbers.

In reply to SVreX:

I referenced that all at the top of this page, but will do so again. I am not claiming that 50% number is legitimate (I'm pretty sure I've been arguing it isn't). I am trying to focus on the total tax burden, not just income tax. I am jumping between sources, because that's what I can find in the amount of time I feel like spending.

Your statistics found that the wealthiest 1% earned 24% of income (I'm presuming for the nation, not just CA). This statistic (from a group that looks to probably not be completely full of b.s.) shows they actually pay around 36% of Federal Income Taxes (far from 50%).

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

I know that XKCD is not an authority, but this graphic is pretty good (good enough for BSing on a message board), and shows that all groups pay roughly equal amounts of State Income Taxes, bringing proportion of income to percentage of population closer in line. Just looking at it, I'm ball-parking that means about 30% of Income tax for the top 1.3%:

http://xkcd.com/980/

It is common knowledge that lower income people spend a greater portion of their income of goods that are sales-taxed, and wealthier people spend less. That should also move their percentage of total taxes closer to their proportion of the population. I'm just estimating what that might be.

All of the numbers that all of us (including Carolla) are throwing out come from different sources and are all a bit fuzzy. All of them say different things. All these statistics are incomplete and pretty close to meaningless. None of them support the assertion that 1% of the population pays 50% of the taxes (or even 50% of Federal Income Tax).

Ultimately... This is the internet. What we're saying doesn't much matter.

Occu-pied http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/humble_pie_for_occupy_juQzvEdwg2TLpinA3qVM7K

Suckers!

A group of whiny Occupy Wall Street protesters are hotter than a brick oven, claiming they ordered a delivery of pizza pies while in police custody — and the cops devoured them.

The demonstrators’ say they were detained for several hours on Thursday at the 7th Precinct on the Lower East Side for blocking traffic near City Hall, so they asked cops to allow them place a $30 pizza order through the AIDS nonprofit for which they had been protesting.

The cops agreed — but when the food arrived, the demonstrators never got so much as a slice.

The protesters — who were taking a break from annoying Wall Streeters to demonstrate for more AIDS research money — are now accusing the cops of stealing the pizza and want their dough back.

THAT BITES! The OWS protesters were being held at this Lower East Side station house when the officers gobbled up their pizza dinner. The NYPD insists it was just a misunderstanding.

“Any way you slice it, was an honest mistake,” NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said.

The cops thought the pizzas had been sent by officers outside the precinct as a thank-you for making the arrests, Browne said.

But the OWS group sees it as a cheesy punishment.

“We called our legal support team. They said, ‘We sent you the pizzas hours ago,’ ” said protester David Thorpe.

Another protester, Charles King, the president of Housing Works, a charity for homeless people with AIDS, said, “We could see the empty pizza boxes in the trash, and the empty plastic bottles.”

Protesters say they had asked the cops if they could order pizza and the cops recommended they call Mini Munchies in the East Village and even gave them its menu.

The protesters ordered two plain cheese pies and two liters of soda — a Coke and a Sprite.

Browne insists the soda was dispensed in plastic cups.

Only after the cops’ feast did the protesters realize they’d been had.

They chanted: “Stealing is bad. Cops stealing? That’s just sad.” They say the cops got red-faced.

“They laughed and smirked and didn’t deny it,” Thorpe said.

Apparently remorseful, the officers offered replacement pizzas.

But the protesters turned down the offer.

“We didn’t want to give them an excuse to hold us in jail any longer than they needed to,” Thorpe said.

The eight protesters, who’d been arrested at around noon outside City Hall, were transferred at about 9 p.m. to Central Booking to await appearances in Manhattan Criminal Court, Thorpe said.

They got to Central Booking too late for prisoners’ nightly meal.

Cops regularly feed prisoners in holding cells. If prisoners don’t like the food, “police may purchase alternatives with funds provided by the prisoners,” Browne said.

Thorpe was released at about 9:30 a.m. yesterday. Everyone in the group was out by late yesterday afternoon.

In reply to Salanis:

Your numbers are completely reliant on combining the state taxation numbers to get anywhere close. Maybe that's correct.

But the original reference (Carolla's) didn't say that. It MAY have included state numbers when claiming 50%, but it MAY NOT have.

If taxation numbers for statements like that include the state numbers, you are close. If they do not, you are way off. Completely out of the ballpark.

My understanding is that 50% of the Federal tax dollars received are paid by 1% of the population. If this is the case, then lower income people simply do not pay their fair share. I could be wrong.

Carolla's point was just that. You are saying you disagree with his point, but have not shown him to be incorrect. I am simply asking you to show this so I can try to agree with you if you are correct.

If you are not, then you are just blowing smoke. If you are, then we should all agree with you that Carolla is a blowhard.

I am not claiming to know. I am simply observing that you do not know either, and are not providing any information that shows the facts.

Therefore, based on my limited understanding (which is, in part, limited by your failure to fully make your case) I find Carolla's perspective to be extremely compelling.

SVreX wrote: Your numbers are completely reliant on combining the state taxation numbers to get anywhere close. Maybe that's correct. But the original reference (Carolla's) didn't say that. It MAY have included state numbers when claiming 50%, but it MAY NOT have. If taxation numbers for statements like that include the state numbers, you are close. If they do not, you are way off. Completely out of the ballpark. My understanding is that 50% of the Federal tax dollars received are paid by 1% of the population. If this is the case, then lower income people simply do not pay their fair share. I could be wrong.

I do not see where he is getting the 50% figure. In the article he says that the top 1% are paying "50% of all income tax in the country". To me that means both Federal and State Income taxes. Even for only Federal income tax, the numbers I have seen say about 36%. When State Income Taxes are included, that proportion goes down. Where is that 50% figure coming from?

My biggest issue is that many people want to vilify the OWS-generation and a lot of those folks want to vilify the wealthiest 1%. I think both of those perspectives are wrong. I do not believe either group is being put and unfortunate as they say they are. I believe that animosity is distracting us from solving the real issues in this country.

In reply to Salanis:

You are incorrectly quoting Carolla and changing the numbers. He does NOT say that the top 1% are paying "50% of all income tax in the country". He says:

Carolla said: ...In CA before the economy fell apart, I think it was the top 1% of the taxpayers pay for 50% of the taxes that came in here in CA.

He said nothing about "all income tax in the country".

Your assertions are incorrect. You are mis-quoting Carolla, but also changing the statistics.

The top 1% of wage earners earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the Federal taxes. The bottom 50% of the wage earners earn 13% of the income but pay 3% of the Federal taxes. This is strictly a summary of Federal numbers, not including any additional monies paid to the States.

The American Enterprise Institute said: The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

Here's the link to the complete article:

Article from the American Enterprise Institute

Based on that, I respectfully disagree with everything you are saying and side with Mr. Carolla.

If you have different information, I'll be happy to hear it.

In reply to SVreX:

According to the article referenced initially:

Among the many highlights in Carolla’s rant, he asks why the top “1 percent” of America paying 50 percent of all income tax in the country is not good enough for the Occupiers.

It is possible the article is misquoting him.

The American Enterprise Institute article you are referencing also comes from the 2004 figures, prior to the current recession.

He still isn't saying where he's getting that 50% figure. You are not coming up with that same 50% figure. Everything indicates to me that he is inflating them to get a stronger reaction.

I think focusing on just Federal Income tax compared to income (not including investments and other forms of wealth, or any other taxes) is a very limited way of looking at the situation which is used to scew things in favor of making us feel bad for the poor, put-upon rich people.

Full disclosure:

I just noticed the article I linked is from 2007. Doesn't change the essence or the point, but it might currently be off by some percentage points.

In reply to Salanis:

Listen to his words. My quote above was my transcript directly from his words.

The article mis-quoting him (and then you repeating the error) is not my problem.

The numbers are not necessarily inflated. His numbers were from CA. My article link was Federal from 2007. I can easily see there would be a difference.

Your numbers are fabricated.

SVreX wrote: Full disclosure: I just noticed the article I linked is from 2007. Doesn't change the essence or the point, but it might currently be off by some percentage points.

I have a bigger issue that it uses 2004 numbers, which predate the current recession. This is difficult though, because I can not find a reputable source that provides both percent income and percent tax burden newer than that.

SVreX wrote: The numbers are not necessarily inflated. His numbers were from CA. My article link was Federal from 2007. I can easily see there would be a difference. Your numbers are fabricated.

My numbers are not fabricated. My numbers are at the Federal level.

His numbers are not backed up by any references. Where is he getting that 50% number? Can you find it? I suspect he heard that number, it made him angry, and he repeated it because it's a good entertainment sound bite.

The percent of tax burden is also of limited meaning without also including the percentage of income. It would not surprise me at all if the wealthiest people in California (and probably New York) are wealthier than the wealthiest people in other states.

Salanis wrote: I think focusing on just Federal Income tax compared to income (not including investments and other forms of wealth, or any other taxes) is a very limited way of looking at the situation which is used to scew things in favor of making us feel bad for the poor, put-upon rich people.

Don't be ridiculous.

Examining Federal dollars is a perfectly legitimate way to discern and analyze issues with Federal spending.

Pooling it together with a few state dollars thrown in in whatever convoluted manner one chooses is an illegitimate method of defending a nebulous concept which is not defendable.

How about NH? How are we gonna count them? There IS NO state income tax there, so I guess we'll just have to make it up.

I'm not trying to fact-check Carallo's numbers. I know nothing about CA, and don't really care. I am asking you to give a basis for your (apparently fabricated) claim that wealthy people who earn 50% of the income should have to pay an equivalent 50% of the tax burden (regardless of the actual percentage numbers, or which government level we are discussing).

His point: there IS NOT a fair correlation between how much of the tax burden the wealthy pay and how much they make. Your claim: there IS such a correlation.

The facts appear to say you are wrong.

Salanis wrote: My numbers are not fabricated. My numbers are at the Federal level.

You're right. I apologize. It's not the numbers that are fabricated, it's the relationship and correlation.

The 50% is irrelevant. It makes no difference what the real numbers are.

The question is, is the amount they pay in taxes a fair and equitable percentage.

You are claiming the wealthy pay a similar percentage of the overall taxation as their percentage of the income. If that were true, I'd agree with you.

It is NOT TRUE. They pay a great deal higher percentage in taxes than the percentage of the income they make, regardless of the actual numbers.

SVreX wrote: I'm not trying to fact-check Carallo's numbers. I know nothing about CA, and don't really care. I am asking you to give a basis for your (apparently fabricated) claim that wealthy people who earn 50% of the income should have to pay an equivalent 50% of the tax burden (regardless of the actual percentage numbers, or which government level we are discussing).

I presume that's a typo.

You keep using the 50% tax burden number but that is a questionable one, at best, since it only applies to CA, and we have no reference to what it actually is.

If we limit ourselves to just Federal Income Tax across the entire country (which we have better figures for) the numbers look more like people earning 20%-24% of the income paying roughly 37% of the FIT. Why is that fair or not? I see several reasons.

First, there are other taxes that people pay in this country. The less wealthy people pay a greater proportion of the money they earn in sales tax. The middle class probably (I don't have numbers) pay a greater proportion in property tax compared to other demographics. When you look at the whole picture, rather than one slice, the situation looks more equitable to me. Does it come out to be exactly even? Probably not. But the discrepancy is a lot smaller than people make it out to be.

Second, I have no problem with a graduated tax rate. Around 2000, my dad was in that top 1%. He was in the 50% income tax bracket. He complains about how much he had to pay, but later will comment that he earned more money than he could reasonably spend at the time, and did things like buying small airplanes just so that he could spend some of his money. That is only one situation, but I don't really feel bad for him.

I don't see a big issue with a graduated tax rate. I don't think it unfairly punishes anyone. I am not discouraged from wanting to make more money because it will put me into a higher tax bracket.

I suspect the fairness of graduated income tax rates is the fundamental point we disagree on. I'd say that's a subjective point that neither of us can be right or wrong on. Obviously neither is going to convince the other on it.

If you REALLY care (and I don't think you do), the 50% is apparently a factual number in the state of CA. It includes the state taxes.

2011 Business Insider Article

Hmmm... maybe Carolla was right...

Article also discusses the pitfalls of overtaxing the rich.

SVreX wrote: The 50% is irrelevant. It makes no difference what the real numbers are.

The 50% makes a difference and it doesn't. The actual numbers do make a difference and they don't. Yes, the wealthiest people pay a greater percentage than they earn. But people throw around bigger numbers to make the situation sound more extreme. Than it is.

The question is, is the amount they pay in taxes a fair and equitable percentage.

This is where we disagree, I think. "Fair" and "equitable" aren't necessarily the same things. Do the wealthiest pay an equitable amount? No, but it's closer to equal than people throw around numbers for. Do they pay a fair amount? That is subjective. I say that what they pay with a graduated income tax rate is fair.

My reference to the 50% was not a typo.

It is a carry-over from YOUR statement.

Salanis wrote: I don't feel bad for people who don't have a job because they don't put in the work to finding one, or who won't take something because it's "below" them. I also don't feel bad for people have to pay more taxes because they earn more money. If a group earns a bit under 50% of the income in this country, it's not particularly a hardship if they pay a bit over 50% of the taxes.

I do not care about the percentage. YOU used it to try to make a point which was incorrect in it's assumptions, and would have been incorrect regardless of what percentage number was plugged in.

Your point was wrong. We can look at the Federal, combined state, or whatever other variation on the them you want to. It's still wrong.

SVreX wrote: My reference to the 50% was not a typo. It is a carry-over from YOUR statement.

Salanis wrote: I don't feel bad for people who don't have a job because they don't put in the work to finding one, or who won't take something because it's "below" them. I also don't feel bad for people have to pay more taxes because they earn more money. If a group earns a bit under 50% of the income in this country, it's not particularly a hardship if they pay a bit over 50% of the taxes.

Which was a carry over from:

SVreX wrote: First off- that's not what you said. You referred to the 1% or the .5% Carolla reffered to. That would be the top earners who pay 50% of the taxes, not the "evil derivatives traders". You are changing the focus.

Salanis wrote: The 50% makes a difference and it doesn't. The actual numbers do make a difference and they don't. Yes, the wealthiest people pay a greater percentage than they earn. But people throw around bigger numbers to make the situation sound more extreme. Than it is.

That's true, but not this time. As I noted earlier, Carolla's numbers were correct in the statement he made about the state of CA. They were NOT an exaggeration.

It all comes down to, the wealthy pay more in income tax because we have a graduated tax rate. Do you believe that is fair or not? I do. You don't.

Am I going to say anything that is going to convince you that a graduated tax rate is fair? Probably not.

Are you going to say anything to convince me that a graduated tax rate isn't fair? Probably not.