Occupy.... the Simthsonian?

In reply to oldsaw:

The first round of my tax simplifcation/fairness act would be to -

a) Eliminate all tax credits

b) Eliminate all special investment tax rates - everything would be taxed as "ordinary income"

c) Remove the ceiling for paying social security and medicare taxes

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to oldsaw: The first round of my tax simplifcation/fairness act would be to - a) Eliminate all tax credits b) Eliminate all special investment tax rates - everything would be taxed as "ordinary income" c) Remove the ceiling for paying social security and medicare taxes

That's a start, Otto, but you need to specify an effective rate that would apply to everyone.

This thread is based on the frustrations of those lacking job opportunities. You need to offer a tax rate that encourages domestic growth from companies that have migrated to more profitable locales.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

Xceler8x wrote:

oldsaw wrote: It's good to see that you acknowledge every one should pay their fair share. That would include those that pay nothing like about 50% of wage earners, right?

So you're saying 50% of wage earners aren't paying taxes? Got a link to the data to back that up? Without hard data confirming that it's just a fart in a stiff wind.

That statement as it sits isn't correct.... however.... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0 Been fairly common knowledge for awhile, unfortunately most don't put the necessary qualifiers in the statement, those being "federal" and "income."

Thanks for that article.

In reply to oldsaw:

Corporate taxes aren't much of a problem for U.S. corporations. Private corporations are pretty good at finding a way to pay out all their funds to their owners until they have no net income. Public companies have a large bag of tricks to avoid taxes.

Public companies have two incomes - book and tax. They jack up book income as much as possible so they can impress Wall Street and get big bonuses. They reduce taxable income as much as possible so they don't pay much tax. How about this - one income figure. You report $6.3 billion in earnings to Wall Street, you pay tax on $6.3 billion. I have no idea what the tax rate would need to be to generate enough income to the government, but it sure would cut down on the shenanigans.

oldsaw wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to oldsaw: The first round of my tax simplifcation/fairness act would be to - a) Eliminate all tax credits b) Eliminate all special investment tax rates - everything would be taxed as "ordinary income" c) Remove the ceiling for paying social security and medicare taxes

That's a start, Otto, but you need to specify an effective rate that would apply to everyone. This thread is based on the frustrations of those lacking job opportunities. You need to offer a tax rate that encourages domestic growth from companies that have migrated to more profitable locales.

And effectively increasing taxes on investments will accomplish that how?

And how is eliminating the ceiling on SS and Medicare fair? SS was set up as essentially a forced savings program. We'll make you contribute enough to a pension plan to receive a fixed set of benefits in the future. Eliminating the ceiling means your contributions are nearly infinite, but the benefits continue to be fixed. Same with Medicare. That's not "simplification" that is taking previously fair programs and making them decidedly unfair.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to oldsaw: Corporate taxes aren't much of a problem for U.S. corporations. Private corporations are pretty good at finding a way to pay out all their funds to their owners until they have no net income. Public companies have a large bag of tricks to avoid taxes. Public companies have two incomes - book and tax. They jack up book income as much as possible so they can impress Wall Street and get big bonuses. They reduce taxable income as much as possible so they don't pay much tax. How about this - one income figure. You report $6.3 billion in earnings to Wall Street, you pay tax on $6.3 billion. I have no idea what the tax rate would need to be to generate enough income to the government, but it sure would cut down on the shenanigans.

This is a very very good idea. Especially if you were able to reach out to companies traded on other indices operating here. That way the effective tax rate could be less and the dollars paid in could actually be fair and level.

Basil Exposition wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to oldsaw: The first round of my tax simplifcation/fairness act would be to - a) Eliminate all tax credits b) Eliminate all special investment tax rates - everything would be taxed as "ordinary income" c) Remove the ceiling for paying social security and medicare taxes

That's a start, Otto, but you need to specify an effective rate that would apply to everyone. This thread is based on the frustrations of those lacking job opportunities. You need to offer a tax rate that encourages domestic growth from companies that have migrated to more profitable locales.

And effectively increasing taxes on investments will accomplish that how? And how is eliminating the ceiling on SS and Medicare fair? SS was set up as essentially a forced savings program. We'll make you contribute enough to a pension plan to receive a fixed set of benefits in the future. Eliminating the ceiling means your contributions are nearly infinite, but the benefits continue to be fixed. Same with Medicare. That's not "simplification" that is taking previously fair programs and making them decidedly unfair.

I don't want the government to try to make everything fair to everyone. That is too communistic for me.

Strizzo wrote: i can only guess that the chart you posted is corrected for inflation, as when it shows the average compensation levelling off is when there are sustained high levels of inflation with long periods of low-moderate inflation in between.

If I were supporting my argument at all costs - I'd say yes. Unfortunately I can't state with certainty that the graph is adjusted for inflation.

Wally wrote: Have you spoken to any of them? I took a walk by one my way to work. Our office is a few short blocks from there,and we have many openings, both professional (Lawyers hr, accounting eng ect) and labor. Most of these kids are not interested. They want their bills forgiven so they can follow their calling with being burdened with the cost of reality. Several that I spoke to quit jobs to join this movement to bring about their socialist paradise. They also want some more pot and. condoms. They've appoined a CFO, rented some space for a conferance room and are looking to rent some downtown apartments for the leadership to live in.

Come on Wally. I can't defend everyone. I'm sure there are some folks who aren't completely on board with what we consider to be exemplary behavior. A bit like saying that because a few cops are bad eggs they all should be fired. It doesn't work like that. In my opinion, this doesn't lessen the legitimacy of the protest.

..and with the rented space, CFO, etc. They're getting some big money donations. The unfortunate side effect of that is that you have to manage it somehow. Let's hope the new boss isn't the same as the old boss or we'll be doing this all over again.

oldsaw wrote: X, if you go back and read the exchanges between Cone_Junky and Dylisi Dave, you'll see the context specifically targets federal income taxes. I never contend(ed) that 50% don't pay taxes of some sort. Cone-Junky asserted that the federal income tax "should the same rate no matter the income level." and I was requesting clarification.

Sorry for the misunderstanding Old Saw. I'm reading the thread but some discussion branches are confusing me.

In reply to Xceler8x:

well, that doesn't really help your argument if it IS adjusted for inflation, it seems that the real cause for reduced compensation starting in the 70's was when there was fairly high inflation levels for an extended period, and even once the near-20% inflation came down, it was still relatively higher than it was pre-70's. unfortunately, inflation is a side-effect of a growing economy, and is difficult to stem while at the same time stimulating the economy.

Xceler8x wrote: ..and with the rented space, CFO, etc. They're getting some big money donations. The unfortunate side effect of that is that you have to manage it somehow. Let's hope the new boss isn't the same as the old boss or we'll be doing this all over again.

I have read this book before. I was called "Animal Farm" then...

Strizzo wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: well, that doesn't really help your argument if it IS adjusted for inflation, it seems that the real cause for reduced compensation starting in the 70's was when there was fairly high inflation levels for an extended period, and even once the near-20% inflation came down, it was still relatively higher than it was pre-70's. unfortunately, inflation is a side-effect of a growing economy, and is difficult to stem while at the same time stimulating the economy.

..and there we have a chicken and egg conversation. But we can see the trend of the 1% gaining in wealth while the 99% remain stagnant. This is baring any influence by inflation. There are some other great graphs in that collection I posted. You might want to check them out if you're bored or want to see where Occupy is coming from. For some it's news they feel already. For others consider a "know thy enemy" exercise.

tuna55 wrote: I have read this book before. I was called "Animal Farm" then...

Let's hope not Boxer.

Xceler8x wrote: But we can see the trend of the 1% gaining in wealth while the 99% remain stagnant.

can someone please tell me where the division between the 99% and the 1% is? i need to know if i'm one of us or one of them.

Xceler8x wrote:

Strizzo wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: well, that doesn't really help your argument if it IS adjusted for inflation, it seems that the real cause for reduced compensation starting in the 70's was when there was fairly high inflation levels for an extended period, and even once the near-20% inflation came down, it was still relatively higher than it was pre-70's. unfortunately, inflation is a side-effect of a growing economy, and is difficult to stem while at the same time stimulating the economy.

..and there we have a chicken and egg conversation. But we can see the trend of the 1% gaining in wealth while the 99% remain stagnant. This is baring any influence by inflation. There are some other great graphs in that collection I posted. You might want to check them out if you're bored or want to see where Occupy is coming from. For some it's news they feel already. For others consider a "know thy enemy" exercise.

i have to disagree. the chart measures "productivity" not overall wealth of the top 1% of wage earners. i can only assume that "productivity" means the overall value of goods produced, or the value of goods produced per capita via some calculation, which would make sense as the economy has grown overall at the same time as the "productivity" of america has. hell they could mean the same thing for all you can tell from the (poorly annotated) infographic.

are we to assume that only the top 1% benefit from this increasing "productivity" whatever it may be? the graph certainly implies that, but if i make 10k a year and manage to save money to buy citi or F or Exxon stock, then I benefit from that as well. why is it that the benefit for investors in companies that do well gets ignored and we only look at the people running the company?

I have to say that they are partially right, based on that chart, in that the wage gap is widening. I argue, however, that left politics and right politics don't enter into it, but that up and down (statist vs libertarian) do. Both left and right have been pretty darn statist these days.

My own personal experiences agree. My grandfather had a BS in engineering and then got his masters. My grandmother had a teaching degree and taught for a while until the kids were born. Their life mimics mine to a T, even the professions. I don't have a MS yet, though. They were extremely frugal, but bought a new car (base Civic, but still) every five years such that the oldest car they had was ten years old. I am not even close to that level of financial freedom. Sounds like things have gotten worse from that perspective pretty easily.

I guess the revolution will be televised after all The Real World: Occupy Wall Street

In reply to Wally:

They need to have half Wall Street Protestors and half Tea Party protestors. And maybe half guys who work on Wall Street.

The could call it Flea baggers, Tea baggers and D baggers.

Wow. You summed it quite succinctly and correctly.

Wally wrote: The could call it Flea baggers, Tea baggers and D baggers.

i heart wally, a lot.

tuna55 wrote: Sounds like things have gotten worse from that perspective pretty easily.

As I pointed out to my father, the price for a condo/apartment similiar to his first one has quadrupled since he was my age in the city I grew up in. Just as I had to, he busted ass in a few E36 M3ty jobs (mine were admittingly better paying when adjusted for time/inflation, but I was also saving for school which he did not). He got a job as a power engineer out at a local plant earning $50k per year back in 1990.

I went and got an education (2 years) and since our local community college isn't really technology/engineering orientated, I had to go live on my own to attend the big Tech college in our capitol. So, $20k in debt later, I started out at $45k per year. Hmmmmmm, there seems to be a discrepancy here. He still would argue with me until he was blue in the face that we have the opportunity to earn more money than him, even with the facts all laid out.

The cost of the education isn't really the point, just that as a smart, educated person, I get paid WAY less than he did and he started with zip for experience and had to take two months of night schooling for his 4th class.

AngryCorvair wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: But we can see the trend of the 1% gaining in wealth while the 99% remain stagnant.

can someone please tell me where the division between the 99% and the 1% is? i need to know if i'm one of us or one of them.

Are you kidding? If you were one of them, we'd ALL know it. Every time you posted, it would be in sparkly letters and someone, somewhere would get a job.

Here's a chart that may or may not be true.

In reply to HiTempguy:

When our parents (and some on this board) went to college it was subsidized about 70% from the gov't. I think it is closer to 25% now (if that).

It is a completely different world for current students. That is why so many more younger graduates have absurd student loans compared to previous generations. But the older crowd think they are just whiners because they had no problems when they went to college 120 frickin years ago. Tuition rises at a much faster rate than inflation. Most industries get more efficient and productive as time passes and can keep up with inflation, education doesn't.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/19/141505658/why-is-college-so-expensive

"If you are a veteran of a public university, the jump in tuition at your alma mater might be downright jaw-dropping. Tuition at the University of California, Berkeley, was about $700 a year back in the 1970s. Today, U.C. Berkeley students have to fork over around $15,000 per year. That's a 2,000 percent increase."

Cone_Junky wrote: Tuition at the University of California, Berkeley, was about $700 a year back in the 1970s. Today, U.C. Berkeley students have to fork over around $15,000 per year. That's a 2,000 percent increase."

The worst thing is, where is all of that money going? I still buy all of my own texts, writing utensils, papers, computers, printers, etc. Last I checked, I sat in a classroom where an instructor taught on a whiteboard/overheads and the miniature industrial processes were all paid/sponsored by industry.

Tom Heath wrote:

AngryCorvair wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: But we can see the trend of the 1% gaining in wealth while the 99% remain stagnant.

can someone please tell me where the division between the 99% and the 1% is? i need to know if i'm one of us or one of them.

Are you kidding? If you were one of them, we'd ALL know it. Every time you posted, it would be in sparkly letters and someone, somewhere would get a job. Here's a chart that may or may not be true.

where's the semi-sparkly font? Advanced Cooling Therapy LLC has created one full-time job in MI so far (no, not mine), and we're working on more.