Occupy Wall Street protest

[tsst]

... About "a largely unfettered and largely unregulated capitalist system is the best performing to date." There are highly socialist countries that are doing well some even better then the U.S. right now. I don't know exactly what it is that makes a country do well. I know that historically the highly socialist countries of Sweden, Finland, Denmark have had higher levels of "happiness" however that is measured and they do pretty well economically. As of 2010 in terms of growth Sweden is doing really well, Finland is doing better then the U.S., Denmark is doing pretty crappy https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html

About California and the direct democracy there see my suggestions in my reply to Nova

As for "One place we have failed in the US is allowing market forces to be corrupted. Allowing corporations to influence politics was a major mistake. Representatives should answer only to the people." this is one place where I totally agree with you. YAY!!

You sight two socialist anomalies. There is so much that goes into economy types that it is hard to compare a total picture. Compound that with the size difference and it is even more difficult. The US is 35 times the population of Sweden and over 60 times the size of Finland. The combined federal tax rate for the US is 35% (35% income and 0% sales/VAT), Sweden is 85% (60% income and 25% sales/VAT), Finland is 75% (52% income and 23% sales/VAT). The Sweden and Finland economies are a microcosm in the world economy. The Swedish GDP is $450 billion. Half of their GDP is from tax revenue. A full third of their population works for the government. They benefit greatly from a government willing to use its natural resources also. Sweden is also an industrialized nation something that would be hard to get back to in the US since our politicians chose to export that portion of our economy. Our government is unwilling to use our natural resources for even our own needs let alone for export.

There is also no way a country the size of the US can employ 100 million government employees, rely on taxes for 50% of its GDP, tax its populous at 85% and sustain ultra high social welfare systems for masses. Another side note is Sweden never had to recover from either world war. I simply think there are far too many differences between Sweden and the US to say their socio-economic system would work here.

USSR would have been a closer comparison and we know how well that turned out. China may be another fair comparison and I doubt many Americans would be ok living like the average Chinese citizen. Some of western Europe (UK, France, etc) but they are all trying to cut those socialist programs now realizing they are simply unsustainable. We have a multitude of examples of it not working but yet as they are trying to swing away from it slightly we seem to have not learned a thing from them and are swinging towards it.

Keep growing government, adding massive unsustainable programs like Obamacare and in a decade we will be the next Greece only on a global killing scale!

I got a question for you guys seeing as a group you guys seem really conservative. Do you guys really believe that giving tax breaks to the wealthy to try to stimulate job growth works in a recession? I know personally that if I was a person who had people work for me I wouldn't be hiring new people while the economy is bad. I'd be putting those savings away if the economy goes even worse. While I think that if you give a tax break to the poor most will spend that money because it means that now they can afford to buy some things that they have been putting off (like buying some new clothes or getting your car fixed or going out to eat) and to me that seems like it would stimulate the economy because people are spending money so demand goes up so then supply has to go up to meet demand and to meet supply you have to hire more workers. A way that a tax break to employers might work is if you only get the tax break if you hire people and get a tax break based on the percentage of your workforce that is new but not just a tax break that has nothing attached to it.

The top 50% pay 98% of the taxes now. How much do you propose we cut the extraordinarily unfair 2% that the bottom 50% pay. I find it reprehensible when politicians use the "fair share" BS politico scare line. 50-50 sounds fair to me, but somehow 98-2 is unfair. The bottom 50% paying 2% is somehow too acrid to bear?!?!

I personally like the idea of a federal consumption tax and no income tax. It would catch all including illegals, tourists, corporations, etc. Everyone pays a share. I won't presume to imply I am a tax wizard of any sort so details would need ironed out before that type of change could be proven feasible. It just seems logical to me on the surface.

 

[willderphil]

As it is right now, the rich already pay a huge proportion of the taxes, while the poor pay little to none.
What I would propose is a flat tax. I would eliminate all progressive income tax, property tax, corperate tax, fire tax, sales tax, inventory tax, telephone tax, ulitities tax, every single hidden tax that you pay and don't even know you are being taxed. Then I would set a tax percentage that every single person would have to pay across the board. Say 25% (or whatever it would take, I don't know the number). If you make $40000.00 a year you would pay 25% of that in taxes, if you make $40000000000 a year you would pay 25% of THAT in taxes. It would eliminate the IRS and all loopholes, and would be fairer for everyone.
As far as political affiliation, I consider myself a fiscally conservative Libertarian.

Umm you didn't answer.

Anyway the rich do pay a lot of taxes and a lot of the poor don't pay any it's true, but as a proportion of income it's not as bad though. the top 1% make 16.9% of all income and pay 36.7% of all income taxes. the top 1-5% (not including the top 1%) make 14.8% of income and pay 22.0% of all income taxes. the people that fall between 25-50% (from about $32,000 to $66,000) from the top make 20.7% of all income and pay 11% of taxes.The bottom 50% only make 13.5% of all income and only pay 2.3% of all income taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Anyway though I think your idea for a flat tax would hurt me personally too much. Me and my wife make $30,000 a year a flat tax would take 7,500 of that. My rent for my house would take $10,000 of that and I would be left with $12,500 a year for all other bills and expenses. I would have to make that pay for food, electricity and gas, water sewer and garbage. And I don't think I would have money left over after that for cell phones, cable and internet, clothes, or practically anything else and I am almost at the 50% mark apparently. That means that close to half the population has income lower then mine

A more appealing way to reform taxes would be a fair tax in a way similar to http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main . It is very similar to what you are proposing but it is more like a sales tax that way you get the underground economy when they buy any other thing besides underground goods and also you get to tax tourist. Also the way fairtax.org proposes it it's not a burden on the poor as much because everyone gets a tax prebate in the amount of taxes you would spend on essential goods and services (I'm thinking this is a flat based on what the average person at the poverty line would pay in taxes on essential items.) Another way I read somewhere how it could be done was to not tax nondurable goods and services. Apparently nondurable goods includes clothing and while i think it should to an extent it would just not seem right not taxing designer jeans that cost over a hundred dollars a pair say like these http://www.truereligionbrandjeans.c...n__Rusty_Barrel_Medium/pd/np/2002/p/5895.html and that is one of the cheaper ones. Or taxing services of people who use more then necessary so maybe the prebate way is the way to go.

 

[willderphil]

Keep growing government, adding massive unsustainable programs like Obamacare and in a decade we will be the next Greece only on a global killing scale!

I don't know whey people have a problem with "Obamacare." The thing that I hear people hate about it is that it makes you have to purchase health care or pay a fine. The way I see it we already don't deny people medical attention and almost everyone eventually uses a doctor and the doctors as far as I know still get paid by the U.S. government through your taxes. It is just making everything a little more visible in my personal opinion. People say if it actually works that people who already have health insurance should go down too so I really don't see what the problem is.

The top 50% pay 98% of the taxes now. How much do you propose we cut the extraordinarily unfair 2% that the bottom 50% pay. I find it reprehensible when politicians use the "fair share" BS politico scare line. 50-50 sounds fair to me, but somehow 98-2 is unfair. The bottom 50% paying 2% is somehow too acrid to bear?!?!

50-50 wouldn't be fair but I must have been writing my response to starsevol when you were writing this so just see that.

I personally like the idea of a federal consumption tax and no income tax. It would catch all including illegals, tourists, corporations, etc. Everyone pays a share. I won't presume to imply I am a tax wizard of any sort so details would need ironed out before that type of change could be proven feasible. It just seems logical to me on the surface.

Yeah I agree again see my post
Sorry if I screwed something up but I tried to break it up using tags.

 

[starsevol]

Umm you didn't answer.

Anyway the rich do pay a lot of taxes and a lot of the poor don't pay any it's true, but as a proportion of income it's not as bad though. the top 1% make 16.9% of all income and pay 36.7% of all income taxes. the top 1-5% (not including the top 1%) make 14.8% of income and pay 22.0% of all income taxes. the people that fall between 25-50% (from about $32,000 to $66,000) from the top make 20.7% of all income and pay 11% of taxes.The bottom 50% only make 13.5% of all income and only pay 2.3% of all income taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Anyway though I think your idea for a flat tax would hurt me personally too much. Me and my wife make $30,000 a year a flat tax would take 7,500 of that. My rent for my house would take $10,000 of that and I would be left with $12,500 a year for all other bills and expenses. I would have to make that pay for food, electricity and gas, water sewer and garbage. And I don't think I would have money left over after that for cell phones, cable and internet, clothes, or practically anything else and I am almost at the 50% mark apparently. That means that close to half the population has income lower then mine

A more appealing way to reform taxes would be a fair tax in a way similar to http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main . It is very similar to what you are proposing but it is more like a sales tax that way you get the underground economy when they buy any other thing besides underground goods and also you get to tax tourist. Also the way fairtax.org proposes it it's not a burden on the poor as much because everyone gets a tax prebate in the amount of taxes you would spend on essential goods and services (I'm thinking this is a flat based on what the average person at the poverty line would pay in taxes on essential items.) Another way I read somewhere how it could be done was to not tax nondurable goods and services. Apparently nondurable goods includes clothing and while i think it should to an extent it would just not seem right not taxing designer jeans that cost over a hundred dollars a pair say like these http://www.truereligionbrandjeans.c...n__Rusty_Barrel_Medium/pd/np/2002/p/5895.html and that is one of the cheaper ones. Or taxing services of people who use more then necessary so maybe the prebate way is the way to go.

I am not sure what the question was....

As far as your situation, it would hurt me a little bit as well. But I do think it would be better OVERALL to the system we have now. That 20% was just an arbitrary number, I don't know what the actual number would need to be.

As far as "cell phones, cable, internet and clothes"...well Trac phones are very inexpensive. Right now I don't have a cell phone OF ANY KIND, but plan on getting a trac phone soon. Cable is NOT a neccessity. If you can't afford cable you aren't going to die. Internet, the same thing. It is a nice thing to have, but if you really really need it you can go to the library. Clothing, well ok, you do need that. But who says you can't shop at thrift stores? Very nice and cheap clothing can be found there.

Why do people with no money need such luxury?

Plus, if a flat tax is enacted, and done correctly, it would eliminate all other taxes. No more sales tax, income tax, fire tax, property tax, tax on aluminum cans, tax on utilities, tax on phones, tax on gasoline, car tax, FICA, ,,,and the list goes on. You pay taxes every single day that you are not even aware of, and they would all be eliminated. That alone would free up money you are not even aware you are paying as a tax. A flat tax would let people know EXACTLY what they are paying. It would be right out there, not hidden the way it is now.

 

[willderphil]

You sight two socialist anomalies. There is so much that goes into economy types that it is hard to compare a total picture. Compound that with the size difference and it is even more difficult. The US is 35 times the population of Sweden and over 60 times the size of Finland. The combined federal tax rate for the US is 35% (35% income and 0% sales/VAT), Sweden is 85% (60% income and 25% sales/VAT), Finland is 75% (52% income and 23% sales/VAT). The Sweden and Finland economies are a microcosm in the world economy. The Swedish GDP is $450 billion. Half of their GDP is from tax revenue. A full third of their population works for the government. They benefit greatly from a government willing to use its natural resources also. Sweden is also an industrialized nation something that would be hard to get back to in the US since our politicians chose to export that portion of our economy. Our government is unwilling to use our natural resources for even our own needs let alone for export.

There is also no way a country the size of the US can employ 100 million government employees, rely on taxes for 50% of its GDP, tax its populous at 85% and sustain ultra high social welfare systems for masses. Another side note is Sweden never had to recover from either world war. I simply think there are far too many differences between Sweden and the US to say their socio-economic system would work here.

USSR would have been a closer comparison and we know how well that turned out. China may be another fair comparison and I doubt many Americans would be ok living like the average Chinese citizen. Some of western Europe (UK, France, etc) but they are all trying to cut those socialist programs now realizing they are simply unsustainable. We have a multitude of examples of it not working but yet as they are trying to swing away from it slightly we seem to have not learned a thing from them and are swinging towards it.

Your starting to convince me but there are just some things that I think are necessities that I think either the government should pay for everyone or at least for those who can't afford it. For example food, housing, healthcare, sewer, garbage, gas (as in to your house to cook with not for your car), home phone service, electricity within reason, clothing within reason.

 

[willderphil]

oops i forgot to put the [/QUOTE] back in

 

[willderphil]

I am not sure what the question was....

The question about if you think that giving tax breaks to the rich actual helps stimulate the economy.

As far as your situation, it would hurt me a little bit as well. But I do think it would be better OVERALL to the system we have now. That 20% was just an arbitrary number, I don't know what the actual number would need to be.

As far as "cell phones, cable, internet and clothes"...well Trac phones are very inexpensive. Right now I don't have a cell phone OF ANY KIND, but plan on getting a trac phone soon. Cable is NOT a neccessity. If you can't afford cable you aren't going to die. Internet, the same thing. It is a nice thing to have, but if you really really need it you can go to the library. Clothing, well ok, you do need that. But who says you can't shop at thrift stores? Very nice and cheap clothing can be found there.

Why do people with no money need such luxury?

Plus, if a flat tax is enacted, and done correctly, it would eliminate all other taxes. No more sales tax, income tax, fire tax, property tax, tax on aluminum cans, tax on utilities, tax on phones, tax on gasoline, car tax, FICA, ,,,and the list goes on. You pay taxes every single day that you are not even aware of, and they would all be eliminated. That alone would free up money you are not even aware you are paying as a tax. A flat tax would let people know EXACTLY what they are paying. It would be right out there, not hidden the way it is now.

What I was trying to say is that at 12,500 a month after taxes and rent I wouldn't have any money left over to pay for anything except for my bills. If I stayed at my current income I wouldn't be able to buy anything new ever. My son will need a bigger bed eventually he is only in a toddler bed right now and I wouldn't be able to afford it. If my car breaks down and needs to be fixed I wouldn't have money to fix it. My family wouldn't be able to sustain living on our own and remember I am almost at the 50% mark. So again I ask you what do you think of the fairtax with a prebate

 

[willderphil]

More on the fairtax according to http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

the tax rate would be 23%

The prebate would indeed be based on the amount of money a household at the poverty line would spend in taxes total not just on essential items like I think I said earlier and would be available to every legal U.S. resident household if they apply for it. You would apply for it and then renew every year.

If you want to know more about the prebate here is a pdf from the site http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PrebateExplained2011.pdf

 

[tsst]

I don't know whey people have a problem with "Obamacare." The thing that I hear people hate about it is that it makes you have to purchase health care or pay a fine. The way I see it we already don't deny people medical attention and almost everyone eventually uses a doctor and the doctors as far as I know still get paid by the U.S. government through your taxes. It is just making everything a little more visible in my personal opinion. People say if it actually works that people who already have health insurance should go down too so I really don't see what the problem is.

It's an unconstitutional perversion of the commerce clause, just for starters.

50-50 wouldn't be fair but I must have been writing my response to starsevol when you were writing this so just see that.

Gotcha, liberal fair=someone else pays for me. That which the government gives to someone who has not earned it must first be forcibly taken from someone who has earned it. How bout we agree to remove the word fair and replace it with the actual intent.

 

[willderphil]

Is it free or do we pay for it with taxes? If we pay for it with taxes then how do we compensate the paper boy?

I'm not sure if I understand your question. The way it would work is that everyone who works at the university would get paid the same as everyone else but they would be paid by the government using taxes that everyone pays. Why do we need to compensate the paperboy?

Actually I don't know exactly how it would work the more i think about but what about something similar? instead of everyone making the same amount of money what if there was a maximum wage of say 10 times the national median which is about $50,000 I think so the maximum wage would be around $500,000

 

[willderphil]

Gotcha, liberal fair=someone else pays for me. That which the government gives to someone who has not earned it must first be forcibly taken from someone who has earned it. How bout we agree to remove the word fair and replace it with the actual intent.

No what I meant by 50 percent of the population not being fair is because the bottom 50 percent of the population don't make 50 percent of the income. You were talking about the bottom 50 percent of the population paying 50% of the taxes right? Well if they paid 50% of all taxes it would be about 40% of their income. as opposed to the top 50% paying half of all taxes would only be 6% percent of their income

 

[Nova_C]

tsst, I'm curious why you think the poor should bear an unfair tax burden. If you live paycheque to paycheque and barely make rent, 25% will make you homeless. If you make 500k a year, 25% will be like winning the lottery. Unless you mean to make the minimum income level before taxes much higher, like, say, 50K a year. Then I have less of a problem with it.

Sales taxes are extremely regressive and place a massive burden on the poor by actually making them pay much more as a percentage of income than the wealthy.

Frankly, the solutions both of you are presenting strike me as predatory, unfair, regressive, selfish and, most importantly, completely unsustainable.

I also forgot to note before when you guys were talking about socialist economies that were doing better than the US: You forgot about Canada, which economists around the world noted as an example to follow through the recession. Our conservative government is doing their best to undermine our economy by making it more like the US, but for now it's still doing pretty well.

 

[starsevol]

The question about if you think that giving tax breaks to the rich actual helps stimulate the economy.
/QUOTE]

Honestly I am not quite sure how I feel about it.
I think it would be feasible if the recipients of that money had to show how it was spent, either in hiring people or spending on goods and services or investing it as opposed to just banking it.

Of course with a flat tax, there would also be no loopholes or tax breaks of any kind.

Nova, to me having tax rates based on income is preditory, unfair, regressive, selfish, and unsustainable. One flat percentage is much more fair.

 

[willderphil]

It's an unconstitutional perversion of the commerce clause, just for starters.

Just checking to see if what I think is true. Is it a perversion of the commerce clause because the commerce clause only allows the federal government to regulate commerce with foreign nations, between the states, and the Indian nations right?

So I looked it up both sides arguments and maybe it is a perversion of the commerce clause and maybe it is a slippery slope, but it seems like the right thing to do to me.

This is somewhat different but also related. How do you feel about having to purchase car insurance if you have a car. I know it is mandated by the states so the commerce clause doesn't apply but you still have to pay it in all but 2 states.

 

[willderphil]

Sales taxes are extremely regressive and place a massive burden on the poor by actually making them pay much more as a percentage of income than the wealthy.

Frankly, the solutions both of you are presenting strike me as predatory, unfair, regressive, selfish and, most importantly, completely unsustainable.

Even with the prebate you still think all those things? With the prebate if all income is spent a family of four making $29,42 would essentially pay no taxes
At $58,840 you would essentially pay 11.5% in taxes.

I just realized are you talking about at higher incomes if they don't spend all their money which makes their tax rate lower essential right? hmm... I'm not sure I feel about that. I mean what good is the money if they never spend it? I'm guessing you will always have a portion of money not being taxed by people saving and all money will have to eventually be spent even if its decades later. I don't know...

 

[tsst]

I'm not sure if I understand your question. The way it would work is that everyone who works at the university would get paid the same as everyone else but they would be paid by the government using taxes that everyone pays. Why do we need to compensate the paperboy?

Actually I don't know exactly how it would work the more i think about but what about something similar? instead of everyone making the same amount of money what if there was a maximum wage of say 10 times the national median which is about $50,000 I think so the maximum wage would be around $500,000

It"s a perfect society where everyone gets paid the same. Money for school is a form of compensation. Therefore if a paperboy doesn't go to school do tax payers simply give him his share?

No what I meant by 50 percent of the population not being fair is because the bottom 50 percent of the population don't make 50 percent of the income. You were talking about the bottom 50 percent of the population paying 50% of the taxes right? Well if they paid 50% of all taxes it would be about 40% of their income. as opposed to the top 50% paying half of all taxes would only be 6% percent of their income

I should have phrased that better. I used 50-50 to imply even or equal or fair. For example since we use a percentage based income tax, if the top pays 35% then the bottom should pay 35%. If you make $1,000,000,000 you pay 35% or $350,000,000. If you make $10,000 you pay 35% or $3500. The way it is now not only does the person making $10,000 pay $0 they probably through welfare programs withdraw tax money others paid. In what way is that 'fair'?

tsst, I'm curious why you think the poor should bear an unfair tax burden. If you live paycheque to paycheque and barely make rent, 25% will make you homeless. If you make 500k a year, 25% will be like winning the lottery. Unless you mean to make the minimum income level before taxes much higher, like, say, 50K a year. Then I have less of a problem with it.

Again with the 'unfair'. See above. Is that what you are referring to?

Sales taxes are extremely regressive and place a massive burden on the poor by actually making them pay much more as a percentage of income than the wealthy.

Frankly, the solutions both of you are presenting strike me as predatory, unfair, regressive, selfish and, most importantly, completely unsustainable.

Doubtful as they are probably living in free(paid for by the top 50%) section 8 housing like Obama's illegal immigrant aunt.

I also forgot to note before when you guys were talking about socialist economies that were doing better than the US: You forgot about Canada, which economists around the world noted as an example to follow through the recession. Our conservative government is doing their best to undermine our economy by making it more like the US, but for now it's still doing pretty well.

:shrugs:

Just checking to see if what I think is true. Is it a perversion of the commerce clause because the commerce clause only allows the federal government to regulate commerce with foreign nations, between the states, and the Indian nations right?

Correct.

So I looked it up both sides arguments and maybe it is a perversion of the commerce clause and maybe it is a slippery slope, but it seems like the right thing to do to me.

Why is it the right thing to do?

This is somewhat different but also related. How do you feel about having to purchase car insurance if you have a car. I know it is mandated by the states so the commerce clause doesn't apply but you still have to pay it in all but 2 states.

You don't have to drive a car. That is a choice one makes. If the gov said everyone has to buy auto insurance even if you don't drive to help bear the burden of those that do I would have the same problem with it.

 

[tsst]

I just realized I have strayed from the OP. Sorry ghosthousecorns. Back on topic.

Does anyone have a real concrete impression of what occupiers expect?

 

[Nova_C]

Nova, to me having tax rates based on income is preditory, unfair, regressive, selfish, and unsustainable. One flat percentage is much more fair.

Well, let's talk about that.

The average US household income in 2010 was $49,445. There are something like approximately 113,000,000 households. US revenue in 2010 was $2.16 trillion with 9% coming from corporate tax, 42% from income tax and 40% coming from social security/social insurance taxes.

According to your flat rate plan, the only tax revenue will be income tax rates. I see no suggestion to transfer more tax burden to corporations, so we'll say that 91% of US revenue needs to be from this modified tax plan. That means that there needs to be 1.965 trillion in income tax revenue.

That means that the average tax revenue from each household (1.965 trillion divided by 113 million homes) is $17,394.00. That would mean the flat tax rate would need to be at minimum 35% to maintain the same level of revenue.

That 35% is the exact same rate as the highest earners. Basically, under your plan, everyone but America's wealthiest will see a significant tax increase. The poor will be especially hard hit as the amount they pay in taxes more than triples.

What's interesting about economies is that they are driven by spending money. The most effective job creation tool is buying stuff. For example, if you give America's wealthiest 20 people each 1 million dollars, very likely they will bank or invest the money. That one million won't mean do anything for them and there is nothing they want that the money will buy them. If you give 1 million poor each 20 dollars, they will go to the local store and buy food or clothes or other products. Those retailers then make money to employ staff, their suppliers make money to employ more staff and so on.

Poor people spend all the money they get because they have no money to save or invest. The poor and lower middle class live paycheque to paycheque, saving nothing. The wealthy do not buy significantly more things. The money they make is banked or invested and does little work in the economy.

And your plan means the people that do the most to drive the economy have less money to spend, a lot less. You will have more homeless since at 35% people need to be making upwards of $40k a year to afford rent and food both. You will have few jobs available since now America's most vulnerable are turned out and have less money to spend. In fact, tax rates would have to increase further to make up for the shortfall as fewer and fewer people live within the system.

It's folly to engage in a flat tax rate.

 

[Nova_C]

:shrugs:

Well, it's interesting to note that the centrist Liberal party was in power during those years of massive surpluses. In fact, for the last four or five decades whenever the Liberals are in power Canada's economy does well.

As soon as the right wing Conservatives get into power we run massive deficits. We don't have fiscal conservatives in Canada. This is not dissimilar to the lack of fiscal conservatives in the US.

However, it is important to note that we maintained our welfare programs, public health care, public education through all that. And Canada isn't even close to the best implementation of socialized medicine.

PS. Fox News has a history of bad mouthing Canada, so I was a bit surprised by that report being a recommendation the US emulate Canada. Of course, how long before Fox News runs another news story about Canada's death panels or that people are dying in waiting rooms?

 

[tsst]

Only 25 tons of trash and $1million to cleanup LA occupy.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_19440446