Occupy !

[Fred Sherman]

You're right. The majority of new jobs are directly created by small businesses. Who are the customers of small businesses? Larger ones. What do you calla small business that makes $1 million in profit? Gettting by. So the answer is to tax them higher, take their earned dollars and reward 30% by giving it to them? I'd rather they keep that money to reinvest a grow, creating more jobs.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

I couldn't agree more. And I count among the potential abuses and a proof of tyranny when government takes from those who work and risk to succeed in the form of punitive taxes and redistributes wealth to the idle to purchase their political support.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

“Society was cut in two: those who had nothing united in common envy; those who had anything united in common terror.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Recollections: The French Revolution of 1848

“Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[grant sarver]

Who are the customers of small businesses? Larger ones.

Source? Not my experience. The largest consumer in this country is ............well,....... the consumer.

 

[grant sarver]

I couldn't agree more. And I count among the potential abuses and a proof of tyranny when government takes from those who work and risk to succeed in the form of punitive taxes and redistributes wealth to the idle to purchase their political support.

Idle? Is that a euphemism for "unemployed"?

And yet in the 1950's the marginal tax rate was 90% on the very rich. Seemed to work better than the current system.

 

[grant sarver]

Do you really think it would have slowed down Steve Jobs if he had only been able to acquire a few hundred million? Do you really think that it's money that drives the "empire builders"?

 

[Fred Sherman]

Do you really think it would have slowed down Steve Jobs if he had only been able to acquire a few hundred million? Do you really think that it's money that drives the "empire builders"?

Yes, because you're looking at the end state, you aren't considering the consequences of iterative taxation across several years and its impact over time. The tax plan you advocate would likely have put Apple out of business in 1996. Likewise IBM in the early 90s.

I'm not for bailing out companies. I don't believe in "too big to fail". I say let them fail if that is what the market dictates. I would have let GM die.

But I'm not for confiscatory economic policy. Taxes are meant for us to collectively paid for essential government, not as a means of wealth redistribution. Americans don't don't believe in that type of socialist tax policy.

The idea that someone who takes risks and puts in the hard work is somehow greedy because they've achieved success and should have the results of their hard work taken from them doesn't play well except for those who have never taken a risk.

Do you really think that it's money that drives the "empire builders"?

But isn't the who Occupy mantra about greed and corruption? You're playing both sides of the fence.

So here's the way I see it. 49% of us work for 51%. Not only do we pay taxes and they don't, but 30% of them have our hard earned money given to them. Even worse, the government runs a deficit every year that it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to pay. You could tax everyone making more than $100,000/year at a 100% tax rate, and it doesn't pay off the annual deficit, let alone the debt.

So, we have two choices. One is cut spending, but the 51% aren't for that because they benefit most from the social programs that fuel the deficits. The other option? Raise taxes. However, we've already shown that a 100% tax rate on "the rich" doesn't solve the problem.

Guess what really needs to happen? The free ride needs to end for everyone. The 51% need to pony up their fair percentage and we need to cut social programs. Hell, we need to cut EVERYTHING by 40%. No sacred cows, nothing off limits.

Cut spending and enact a flat tax, no exemptions, no deductions. Everyone pays because everyone benefits.

This class warfare BS is only going to lead to a second great depression.

 

[grant sarver]

Too bad really, I suspect that, face-to-face, you and I could find a lot to agree on.

It's a shame we couldn't keep a balanced budget after 2000. In good time you need to pay down debt. We hit this recession with no cushion.

Yes, because you're looking at the end state, you aren't considering the consequences of iterative taxation across several years and its impact over time. The tax plan you advocate would likely have put Apple out of business in 1996. Likewise IBM in the early 90s.

I don't understand your point there. If Steve Jobs had paid more personal income tax he wouldn't have come back to Apple? And Apple wasn't earning a profit, so they wouldn't have been affected by tax policy. Same for IBM. Both probably even had a tax loss carry-forward. That's where you can offset profits with previous years losses, up to eight years IIRC.

Americans don't don't believe in that type of socialist tax policy.

Don't pretend to speak for "Americans", that's just diversionary. Like "real Americans believe this". Or "Real Patriots believe that". If there was one American opinion, we wouldn't be having this little chat, now would we? Or am I not a 'Merican?

 

[SchmitzIT]

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" ... "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made – before it can be looted or mooched – made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.

Word.

 

[jadmperry]

Fred,

To expand on what Grant said, it seems like you are combining personal taxation with corporate taxation in the example of Steve Jobs and Apple. I hope you would agree that there are two separate issues there.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Fred,

To expand on what Grant said, it seems like you are combining personal taxation with corporate taxation in the example of Steve Jobs and Apple. I hope you would agree that there are two separate issues there.

So this is the game, is it?

We're all about going after corporate greed, corruption and unfair business practices, huh? Then when I challenge the results, it "Oh, but we mean the people."

Thats a smoke screen, Lets stay on the real topic. Jobs, Ellison, or Gates aren't the targets of these leftist nuts. Apple, Oracle/Sun and Microsoft are. he target is "the 1%", right? Thats businesses, not individuals.

Sorry, you don't get to switch definitions when the results of this class envy are shown for what they are.

 

[jadmperry]

So this is the game, is it?

We're all about going after corporate greed, corruption and unfair business practices, huh? Then when I challenge the results, it "Oh, but we mean the people."

Thats a smoke screen, Lets stay on the real topic. Jobs, Ellison, or Gates aren't the targets of these leftist nuts. Apple, Oracle/Sun and Microsoft are. he target is "the 1%", right? Thats businesses, not individuals.

Sorry, you don't get to switch definitions when the results of this class envy are shown for what they are.

Fred,

I don't get what you mean. My question was about personal vs. corporate taxation and which you were discussing. No game here. Just a straight forward (I think) question. The proposals for taxing the1%, as far as I understood, have been discussing personal taxation. By definition, corporate taxes are different than personal taxes.

 

[jadmperry]

And to be clear, I think both personal and corporate taxation needs to be reformed.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Any reform that doesn't change the 51%/49% equation is doomed. It doesn't get passed this:

Alexis de Tocqueville[/SIZE]]A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

So long as the minority is yoked by social spending to support the majority, democracy is in jeopardy. Inevitably, the majority will grow larger and the minority ever smaller until the system collapses beneath its own weight.

As I said in another thread, we've already reached the tipping point. All that remains is the time, place and how the end game plays out.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Is anyone following the "Occupy Wall Street" protests and, if they are, taking them seriously? It's hard to imagine that anyone is. Other than echoing President Barack Obama's pseudo-populist attacks on corporations and anyone who has a lot of money its hard to understand what they want.

The best comment so far probably came from ABC's Jimmy Kimmel, who recently aired faux new footage of angry demonstrators chanting "What do we want? We're not really sure! When do we want it? Now!"

It's not clear who is paying for the signs and statutes and giant puppets the protesters are carrying or if anyone is paying to bus them in, but it's hard to believe this is the type of artesian phenomena that some commentators would have you believe it to be. It's also not, as some folks have suggested, a sort of left-wing Tea Party portending a yet another shift in the political winds.

One wonders where these folks come from and, more over, why none of them have to get up and go to work in the morning. Looking at the television most of them seem healthy, reasonably well-dressed (for protesters that is), and able bodied. And smart—if their ability to managing their smart phones and apps and iPads are any indication. So why aren't they working—unless this is what they are getting paid to do.

There are some themes emanating from the protests that may have a larger impact on the political culture—but the hate the rich message doesn't seem to be working. It's not that there are more rich people than poor (unless you go by global standards of living—in which case even the poor in America are rich) as it is that everyone probably wants to be rich. As they get older and acquire the things that most Americans do—a job, a family, a car, a home, some investments for the future—their attitudes about all this change. They might not be able to make it into the top 1 percent—as opposed to the 99 the protesters seems to like to talk about—but they can still shoot for the top 10 percent, the top 20 percent, the top 25 percent or even just the upper half, all of which are nice places to be.

These "children of privilege" demonstrating against the "malefactors of great wealth" are but a pale echo of the '60s-style, Saul Alinsky-trained and influenced protesters whom they seek to emulate. In fact they're really just pawns in Obama's effort to win re-election so that he and the rest of his Wall Street friends (Go ahead—check his campaign contributions from 2008 forward at www.fec.gov—I dare you) can continue to make out like bandits at the expense of the middle class.

And just where was this little gem published? Fox news? The RNC website? Some radical right-wing blog?

No, not quite. This comes to you courtesy the traditional liberal print media: US News & World Report.

 

[TheLaw]

can we see them?

Here are a good set of photos of the Occupy Wall Street protest. I was there for about 45 minutes. Interesting if nothing else. My apologies for vB's horrific, non-existent photo management capabilities and the pictures are out of order and some resized with some loss of crispness.

 

[kkm323]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Fred Sherman]

More like paid protestors!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26/exclusive-acorn-playing-behind-scenes-role-in-occupy-movement/

Better than minimum wage - and you get free housing if you don't that its a tent!

 

[Kim]

Here are a good set of photos of the Occupy Wall Street protest. I was there for about 45 minutes. Interesting if nothing else. My apologies for vB's horrific, non-existent photo management capabilities and the pictures are out of order and some resized with some loss of crispness.

Thanks for that, however it is asking for you to log in before you can see them

 

[grant sarver]

Alexis de Tocqueville A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

What Alexis couldn't foresee is that PACs and lobbyists would usurp that power from the electorate or that corporations would be declared "individules". During the past sixty years who has benefited the most? Tax on the rich has gone down from 90% to 35% max. During the same time the tax on average wage earners has gone up. It's not the "majority" who's benefiting or calling the shots. He understood the problem, Tocqueville just didn't understand that money is power.

 

[Fred Sherman]

What Alexis couldn't foresee is that PACs and lobbyists would usurp that power from the electorate or that corporations would be declared "individules". During the past sixty years who has benefited the most? Tax on the rich has gone down from 90% to 35% max. During the same time the tax on average wage earners has gone up. It's not the "majority" who's benefiting or calling the shots. He understood the problem, Tocqueville just didn't understand that money is power.

Except that the facts don't quite mesh...

• 51% pay no taxes
• Entitlement spending is the vast majority of the budget
• The annual federal deficit exceeds the combined wealth of the top 20 of wage earners
• The answer be politicians is to tax the rich

At some point, people have got to wake up to the fact that they are selling their votes to politicians that are borrowing money from our enemies to buy them. Sooner or later, the debt will be called and slavery will be the result. And its a yoke they will have willingly put upon themselves.

 

[TheLaw]

Thanks for that, however it is asking for you to log in before you can see them

Try it now and let me know if you can see the photos of the Occupy Wall Street protest.