Occupy.... the Simthsonian?

The biggest issue with taxation of the rich isn't their ordinary income tax rate. It is they can special tax rates on much of their investment income, usually 15%. I figure Buffet has some ordinary income and tons of investment income. This nets out to a tax rate of 18% or whatever he says.

I pay a higher rate than that.

So what are your approved sites? I don't want to waste my time getting you facts only for you to shift the goal posts.

And what do I care about Buffet or Reagan? Besides if Buffet is so worried about paying he can do so with out actually raising the rates and just cut a check. But he doesn't does he?

Cone_Junky wrote: The Six Demands of Occupy Wall Street (finally)- http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/12-6#.Tpboj0C8wfk.facebook -"Making these reforms will not be easy. After all, Wall Street is clearly the most powerful lobbying force on Capitol Hill. From 1998 through 2008, the financial sector spent over $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to deregulate Wall Street. More recently, they spent hundreds of millions more to make the Dodd-Frank bill as weak as possible, and after its passage, hundreds of millions more to roll back or diluter the stronger provisions in that legislation. "

These aren't the demands of Occupy (whatever that really is, since right now it is only a gathering of malcontents, not a movement). This is Bernie Sanders' proposals. Having said that, I agree with some of his problem identification, but not his solutions. He is talking about making the Federal Reserve a government owned bank lending to small businesses, for example. Sanders is an avowed socialist and that is a typically socialist position. And the type of thing that has already been proven not to work in Europe and the Soviet Union.

He clearly doesn't understand the role of derivatives, so he wants to eliminate them out of fear. They do fill a role, but I agree they need regulation to ensure that there is capital to support the risks they entail. This would also address the problem of "excessive speculation" (so tell me what is "just enough" speculation?). However, excessive speculation typically corrects itself, largely at the expense of the speculators. Witness collector cars in the 80's and, more recently for the younger folks, Beanie Babies in the 90's.

I don't understand why we can't pay a flat tax rate.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

Because everybody's plan has a flat tax with a few caveats. Once you get enough caveats to please everyone in the lawmaking process, you end up with something pretty close to our current tax code.

Datsun1500 wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: So basically if you work hard, go to a cheap state college and hold down three jobs, then you get a job on Wall Street, work even harder and work your way to a position of trust, then rob your clients and your employer blind and force the taxpayers to bail out the mess, then you get a pass as long as you worked long hours on your scams and your dad didn't pay for your degree?

Nope, basically if you work hard, go to a cheap state college and hold down three jobs, then you get a job on Wall Street, work even harder and work your way to a position of means, then you are under no obligation to give your money to those that did not do that for themselves even though they could have, just to be "fair"

Even if they stole their retirement money?

Progressive rate or not, what we need to do is eliminate tax loopholes and major deductions that people can shelter their money from. I go back to that bipartisan committee's proposal from a while back to lower the income tax rate for everyone and just get rid of virtually all deductions. Result would be greater revenue and lower taxes for the majority of Americans. Middle class individuals would benefit the most, the wealthiest business and corporation leaders would end up picking up most of the slack.

I don't believe in this from a "we need to tax the rich more" point of view, but from a "rich people/corporations should not be insulated from paying the same sorts of taxes that regular citizens are responsible for".

The tax equivalent of, we don't need more laws, we need simpler laws that can be enforced.

Salanis wrote: Progressive rate or not, what we need to do is eliminate tax loopholes and major deductions that people can shelter their money from. I go back to that bipartisan committee's proposal from a while back to lower the income tax rate for everyone and just get rid of virtually all deductions. Result would be greater revenue and lower taxes for the majority of Americans. Middle class individuals would benefit the most, the wealthiest business and corporation leaders would end up picking up most of the slack. I don't believe in this from a "we need to tax the rich more" point of view, but from a "rich people/corporations should not be insulated from paying the same sorts of taxes that regular citizens are responsible for". The tax equivalent of, we don't need more laws, we need simpler laws that can be enforced.

Agreed. Herman Cain is currently the only guy saying this, but Steve Forbes has said something like it in the past.

Salanis wrote: Progressive rate or not, what we need to do is eliminate tax loopholes and major deductions that people can shelter their money from. I go back to that bipartisan committee's proposal from a while back to lower the income tax rate for everyone and just get rid of virtually all deductions. Result would be greater revenue and lower taxes for the majority of Americans. Middle class individuals would benefit the most, the wealthiest business and corporation leaders would end up picking up most of the slack. I don't believe in this from a "we need to tax the rich more" point of view, but from a "rich people/corporations should not be insulated from paying the same sorts of taxes that regular citizens are responsible for". The tax equivalent of, we don't need more laws, we need simpler laws that can be enforced.

I get the principle of your arguement. But I don't understand how you can say the rich should pay more in taxes, but the rich shouldn't have a higher tax rate in the same sentence. 6 one way, half dozen the other?

One is a simple tax increase, the other is completely re-writing our tax code. Which one do you think has the possibility of actually happening?

Cone_Junky wrote:

Salanis wrote: Progressive rate or not, what we need to do is eliminate tax loopholes and major deductions that people can shelter their money from. I go back to that bipartisan committee's proposal from a while back to lower the income tax rate for everyone and just get rid of virtually all deductions. Result would be greater revenue and lower taxes for the majority of Americans. Middle class individuals would benefit the most, the wealthiest business and corporation leaders would end up picking up most of the slack. I don't believe in this from a "we need to tax the rich more" point of view, but from a "rich people/corporations should not be insulated from paying the same sorts of taxes that regular citizens are responsible for". The tax equivalent of, we don't need more laws, we need simpler laws that can be enforced.

I get the principle of your arguement. But I don't understand how you can say the rich should pay more in taxes, but the rich shouldn't have a higher tax rate in the same sentence. 6 one way, half dozen the other? One is a simple tax increase, the other is completely re-writing our tax code. Which one do you think has the possibility of actually happening?

More tax increases, in terms of percentages, just give more incentive to find more tax shelters. It does not work. Period. The proof is the whole Warren Buffet and GE type problem we see now. We have a very progressive tax code and yet the actual percentage outlay is regressive. Not one person that I have ever heard has advocated a regressive tax code. Yet we have one. Flat is the only way to go. You start enforcing no loopholes at the current tax codes and you'll have business leave the country in droves. We have high corporate tax rates, and it doesn't seem to matter.

Cone_Junky wrote: I get the principle of your arguement. But I don't understand how you can say the rich should pay more in taxes, but the rich shouldn't have a higher tax rate in the same sentence. 6 one way, half dozen the other? One is a simple tax increase, the other is completely re-writing our tax code. Which one do you think has the possibility of actually happening?

I'm saying we're better off eliminating loopholes and deductions than raising the tax rate. If you raise the tax rate, the people who aren't paying their fair share still wouldn't be because they'll still be able to insulate themselves with deductions and such.

If those people who have the means to insulate their earnings from taxes actually started paying a share comparable to what the average middle-class person is, we'd raise a lot more revenue, and could actually lower the tax rate if we desired.

I'm not saying it will happen (since it was dead in the water as soon as it got out of committee). I'm saying it's a really smart, simple way of doing things if we had the guts to do so.

Otto Maddox wrote: The biggest issue with taxation of the rich isn't their ordinary income tax rate. It is they can special tax rates on much of their investment income, usually 15%. I figure Buffet has some ordinary income and tons of investment income. This nets out to a tax rate of 18% or whatever he says. I pay a higher rate than that.

^^^This

Warren Buffet is confounding ordinary income tax (which he pays astronomically more than his secretary does in both absolute and relative terms) with long term capital gains tax.

It’s so sad to witness a grow man whore himself out in exchange for whatever rewards Obama has offered him.

Salanis wrote: I'm not saying it will happen (since it was dead in the water as soon as it got out of committee). I'm saying it's a really smart, simple way of doing things if we had the guts to do so.

Let's not be too brash, the whole 9-9-9 thing is basically this but with half of a sales tax. He polls at the top pf the field and even with Obama at the moment. It could happen yet. Even though the executive branch doesn't pass or write laws, but hey...

RX Reven' wrote: It’s so sad to witness a grow man whore himself out in exchange for whatever rewards Obama has offered him.

Obviously there is no possible way he believes in his statement. What rewards has Obama offered him (we know it's not monetary)?

tuna55 wrote:

Salanis wrote: Progressive rate or not, what we need to do is eliminate tax loopholes and major deductions that people can shelter their money from. I go back to that bipartisan committee's proposal from a while back to lower the income tax rate for everyone and just get rid of virtually all deductions. Result would be greater revenue and lower taxes for the majority of Americans. Middle class individuals would benefit the most, the wealthiest business and corporation leaders would end up picking up most of the slack. I don't believe in this from a "we need to tax the rich more" point of view, but from a "rich people/corporations should not be insulated from paying the same sorts of taxes that regular citizens are responsible for". The tax equivalent of, we don't need more laws, we need simpler laws that can be enforced.

Agreed. Herman Cain is currently the only guy saying this, but Steve Forbes has said something like it in the past.

As far as I can tell, Cain's plan will tax the poor more. And it will preserve the lower investment income rates. So the rich will stay pretty much in the same position.

RX Reven' wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: The biggest issue with taxation of the rich isn't their ordinary income tax rate. It is they can special tax rates on much of their investment income, usually 15%. I figure Buffet has some ordinary income and tons of investment income. This nets out to a tax rate of 18% or whatever he says. I pay a higher rate than that.

^^^This Warren Buffet is confounding ordinary income tax (which he pays astronomically more than his secretary does in both absolute and relative terms) with long term capital gains tax. It’s so sad to witness a grow man whore himself out in exchange for whatever rewards Obama has offered him.

Well, I don't know about Buffet's intentions, so I'll leave that alone. But I do think that a guy who goes to work every day, does a job, and makes money at it (like an investment banker) shouldn't pay 15% income tax and 0% payroll tax while your average engineer is paying 30% or so. Think about it. There are muliple hedge fund managers who get paid from their job over $1 BILLION dollars a year. And they pay 15% federal income tax on it and no payroll taxes.

Maybe this is the kind of elimination of loopholes that Salanis is talking about. The rich may or may not have a high enough tax rate on ordinary income, but that isn't really the question.

Snowdoggie wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: So basically if you work hard, go to a cheap state college and hold down three jobs, then you get a job on Wall Street, work even harder and work your way to a position of trust, then rob your clients and your employer blind and force the taxpayers to bail out the mess, then you get a pass as long as you worked long hours on your scams and your dad didn't pay for your degree?

Nope, basically if you work hard, go to a cheap state college and hold down three jobs, then you get a job on Wall Street, work even harder and work your way to a position of means, then you are under no obligation to give your money to those that did not do that for themselves even though they could have, just to be "fair"

Even if they stole their retirement money?

I'm calling BS on your argument, Snowdoggie...........

If anyone on Wall Street is committing a crime, by all means prosecute them. However, they cannot have committed those alleged crimes without some collusion with the politicians. Who created the system that allowed corporations to exploit and prosper from it?

Your point is only halfways on target, no different than the well-intentioned folks at Occupy (-insert name here).

In reply to oldsaw:

If you could just get occupy wall street protestors together with the tea party protestors from a couple years ago, you might have something. The system is broken. And nobody on Wall Street or in DC cares.

The democrats aren't doing so well. And the republican party is too busy arguing about who loves Jesus more.

I'll vote for Huntsman just to see more of his daughters.

IF H.Cain really closes the giant loopholes that the 1% fly their corporate jets through and they actually pay their 9%, I'm enthusiastically in support of his short-attention-span...I mean 999 plan. (He must have had a marketing department help with that presentation.)

I'm all about a flat tax, but I don't think that I trust the gubmint to implement it as he's proposing. Then again, I don't trust them (any of them, right or left) to get health care right either. Or energy policy. Or free trade. Or etc...

If you couldn't tell, I'm in support of the 99%/occupy crowd. Not that they have (any) answers, but that they're pissed. I'm kinda pissed too. IMHO, my government should be about service. When I hear (any) politician describe themselves as "working hard", it makes me boil.

Full working days – 137
Travel days – 25
Half days – 29
RECESS DAYS – 90

Final Tally: 137/365
37.5% of the year is spent with a full day of working.

Where I come from, working hard involves actual sweat and working AT LEAST 5 days a week, more likely 7.

I digress...but I don't see the schmoes banging drums in the park as the real problem.

Cone_Junky wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: It’s so sad to witness a grow man whore himself out in exchange for whatever rewards Obama has offered him.

Obviously there is no possible way he believes in his statement. What rewards has Obama offered him (we know it's not monetary)?

I remember an economics professor once asking the class to define “super rich”…after many suggestions from the class, the professor offered his definition which I feel was by far the best. He said you’re super rich when you have so much money that you can influence the environment in such a way as to become even richer.

So, as you pointed out, Obama isn’t going to hand Buffet a bag of money in exchange for promoting his agenda. What’ll happen is that Buffet will miraculously invest (he is the Oracle after all) in certain business sectors that will boom as a result of legislative changes that are made.

BTW, the specific example my professor gave was one of buying up a million acres of worthless land and then magically, the government announces that a new international airport will be built on the site.

It should be noted that my professor was obviously pretty good given that I still remember all this stuff...Go Good Teachers!!!

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to oldsaw: If you could just get occupy wall street protestors together with the tea party protestors from a couple years ago, you might have something. The system is broken. And nobody on Wall Street or in DC cares. The democrats aren't doing so well. And the republican party is too busy arguing about who loves Jesus more.

Sorry, Otto but I'm calling BS on the above bolded quote.

Pay attentention to any of the Republican presidential candidates and you'll see few who use religion as a focal point within their campaigns. Those that do are rapidly falling in all the polls because that's not what is in the best interests of voters right now.

In reply to oldsaw:

Perry and Bachman come to mind. Cain is a Baptist minister. Romney wants to avoid the issue, of course. Doesn't that cover the main guys?

Yeah, my quote is hyperbole but there is some truth to it.

oldsaw wrote: ...If anyone on Wall Street is committing a crime, by all means prosecute them. However, they cannot have committed those alleged crimes without some collusion with the politicians. Who created the system that allowed corporations to exploit and prosper from it?

You've sort of hit on one of the point of the system that is horribly broken (and not really mentioned as a point in the protests), and it really doesn't have much to do with politicians. The reason why they did not break any laws and/or where not prosecuted is that the financial institutions are effectively regulating themselves!

Take a guess where most financial regulators get jobs after their regulator jobs? Guess what jobs people in the financial institutions take for a while and then go back to the institutions to increase there standing in the company? That's right, it's the same people. They are totally in bed together, and guess which side makes WAY more money?

Even after the recent meltdown, the financial heads that Obama put in is cabinet, where the same people who were in charge of the institutions that helped the crash (and the former bosses of the regulators / financial workers). And the people that they replaced? Guess where they came from?

Similar things are certainly happening in other industries.

This is the sort of business / government circle jerk that they are protesting, they just don't really know it... but it's there. Not sure how the Teaparty types would feel about these things, they should be against it, but there basic platform points don't pay attention to it either (I really don't think it's what they are talking about when they want the government to leave businesses alone).

In reply to aircooled:

So there is a revolving door between business and government and you still want to focus on business?

Politicians are charged with appointing these clowns, passing laws to regulate them and then overseeing their actions.

One half of the problem is doing their job, the other half isn't.