Wall Street Protests

[antigoon]

Why not...both...at the same time :O

[MasterShakezula]

I realize that both is better than either or, and would rather have both.

However, if only one had to be done, I'd vouch for cutting spending.

[orcus116]

Why would taxing the middle class be more effective than simply taxing the rich? The math is quite simple:

I lost the original statistics, let's say, the top 10%, who control 60% of the wealth, pay 70% of the taxes.

Then there's the the bottom 90%, who pay the remaining 30%.

Now, if you increase the taxes for the top 10% by, say, 10%, you, as a country, get 7% more money. If you do the same to the bottom 90%, obviously, you only get 3%.

Enlighten me, where did I go wrong?

It's fun playing with numbers when they work in your favor.

[Super Dude]

I realize that both is better than either or, and would rather have both.

However, if only one had to be done, I'd vouch for cutting spending.

And I'd say the same, leaning towards taxes.

[Scheavo]

What you propose would be harmful to the economy, the middle class would have less money, which means less demand in the market place, which means fewer jobs, and a vicious cycle. In the end, you'd have more poor people who can't pay taxes.

A few extra dollars a paycheck would definitely cause all that chaos. Yep. Sure would.

A few extra dollars each paycheck would do nothing to help eliminate our national debt, and it would mean less money being spent my consumers. In a normal functioning economy, I wouldn't say this is a much of a problem - but if you take even $800 dollars a year ($8 a paycheck),  away from someone who makes $15,000 a year, that person is going to cut back on some basic necessities.

Seriously man, learn macroeconomics before you mock me.

[orcus116]

Wait, did you just pull $15,000 out of your ass to make your number crunching work in your favor?

[bertoltus]

Why would taxing the middle class be more effective than simply taxing the rich? The math is quite simple:

I lost the original statistics, let's say, the top 10%, who control 60% of the wealth, pay 70% of the taxes.

Then there's the the bottom 90%, who pay the remaining 30%.

Now, if you increase the taxes for the top 10% by, say, 10%, you, as a country, get 7% more money. If you do the same to the bottom 90%, obviously, you only get 3%.

Enlighten me, where did I go wrong?

It's fun playing with numbers when they work in your favor.

Right. I would love to see your calculation, then.

[orcus116]

Listen, you could be right, I just don't take any numbers seriously until there's some actual backup.

[bertoltus]

It was posted a few pages ago:

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1



OK, it's actually the top 20%, paying about 60%, (I had previously applied numbers from some article that was probably talking about net worth, not income), but they still get the majority of the money.

[Scheavo]

Wait, did you just pull $15,000 out of your ass to make your number crunching work in your favor?

I'm making a general point, so ya I pulled that number out of my ass, but it hardly matters. Rich people stockpile money, they can afford to wait out turbulant times until times are better for investing; the middle class and the poor can't, they spend their money, which goes into the economy, and allows it to function. Taxing the middle class more at at time like this would mean less economic activity, because of less demand, which means lower employment.

I'm not kidding, orcus. I don't know.

Sorry that my intelligence doesn't live up to your expectations.

Hey don't try to make me look like the bad guy. The 1% that people are ragging on do end up paying for a significant portion of the total income taxes in this country, at least relative to monetary value. Did you seriously believe that these guys were sitting there evading the law or something?

There are people in the upper echelons who end up paying zero in taxes; also, they pay a significant total of the income tax because they make a significant portion of the income.

[Riceball]

Timely.

https://www.watoday.com.au/business/brave-economist-blows-whistle-on-bosses-pay-20111016-1lrif.html?rand=1318773879682

I think I might hunt this book down, sounds like a good read.

And see, not all economists are bad

[Rathma]

the emergence of pretty clear class lines, real or perceived

As an economist what would you say is the difference between real and perceived class lines?

[Riceball]

I was waiting for that, economists should just stick to economics, eh?

I would classify a real class line as, I dont know, definitive divisions of income across all groups: so you have your super rich, your rich, your mids, your lower mids and your poor. In addition to that, you have very little to no mobility between each group (not just to the super rich). And finally, conciousness of the above, which leads to social and behavioural change that makes these groups defineable by more than how much money they have.

Clearly in the US there is a gap between super rich and rich that fits this description; not sure about the rest. and yet these protests are a microcosm of all kinds of people and so I don't think it quite fills the definition of real class lines. Happy to be wrong though, as you point out I'm not really well versed in broader sociology/anthropology.

[antigoon]

Saw this on Reddit. Very glad it's starting to happen.

Tea Party Co-Founder Expresses Support for Occupy Wall Street

One of the original founders of the Tea Party movement has told RT.com that he believes Occupy Wall Street is not only comparable to the earliest states of the movement he helped launch but can learn from its mistakes.

“The problem with protests and the political process is that it is very easy, no matter how big the protest is, for the politicians to simply wait until the people go home,” financial blogger Karl Denninger observed. “And then they can ignore you.”

“Well, Occupy Wall Street was a little different,” he continued. “And back in 2008, I wrote that when we will actually see change is when the people come, they set up camp, and they refuse to go home. That appears to be happening now.”

Denninger has been complaining for some time that the Tea Party was hijacked by the Republican establishment and used to protect the very prople it had originally opposed. A year ago, he wrote, “Tea Party my ass. This was nothing other than the Republican Party stealing the anger of a population that was fed up with the Republican Party’s own theft of their tax money at gunpoint to bail out the robbers of Wall Street and fraudulently redirecting it back toward electing the very people who stole all the ****ing money!”

Now he advises Occupy Wall Street, “Don’t let it happen.”

“One of the things that the Occupy movement seems to have going for it is it has not turned around and issued a set of formal demands,” he explains. “This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Everyone is looking for a set of demands. The problem is that as soon as you pipe up with a list of four or five things — and you’ve got to keep it simple and short — then somebody’s going to say, ‘Well, we gave you 70 percent of it, now go home.’ And the fact is, that’s exactly the sort of thing that happened with the Tea Party.”

“Stay on message, which is that the corruption is not a singular event,” Denninger urged. “You can’t focus in one place. You have to get the money out of politics, which is very difficult to do, but at the same time you can’t silence people’s voice.”

[7StringedBeast]

https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/19/politics/occupy-wall-street/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

This is too funny.  Now even the 1% want to come in and protest.

[antigoon]

haha those silly protesters oh man what a bunch of smelly hippies

[7StringedBeast]

You don't think its a little bit silly to have someone in the 1% show up and start protesting along with them?  Considering Baldwin has a nice endorsement deal with Capital One, one of the evil banks the protesters have been so upset about?

[antigoon]

Yes, I do, but I don't think it discounts the movement.

[Sigz]

One of the 1% protesting with them? Not really a problem to me, it's a problem anyone can recognize.

Someone who endorses what's being protested against? That's a problem.

[7StringedBeast]

That's what I was thinking.

[Scheavo]

https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/19/politics/occupy-wall-street/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

This is too funny.  Now even the 1% want to come in and protest.

I don't see the Koch brothers joining the protest...

[juice]

[Super Dude]

@ goon's article: I was totally with the guy until he got off on the whole "tax theft at gunpoint" bit. I almost feel like that's going to be the irreconcilable point of division into the country's political future, like way in the long term. I hope I'm wrong.

@ juice:

[orcus116]

Oh this is still going on? Sure.

[antigoon]

@ goon's article: I was totally with the guy until he got off on the whole "tax theft at gunpoint" bit. I almost feel like that's going to be the irreconcilable point of division into the country's political future, like way in the long term. I hope I'm wrong.

Well that's not the point. The point is that if an establishment party co-ops this movement it is DONE. I think the protesters are smart enough to realize that the Democrats and organizations like MoveOn and such should be treated like poison.

[Super Dude]

Alright, but so where do we go from here? Is this unification of the OWS and Tea Party movements supposed to result in a new, third party, in an opening of the system, what? I mean, what are the political consequences that we seek to achieve? And I do distinguish between that and political goals (end the Fed, take money out of politics, etc.).

Also I'm not arguing a point with these questions, I would like to know everyone's opinion on this.

[antigoon]

Alright, but so where do we go from here? Is this unification of the OWS and Tea Party movements supposed to result in a new, third party, in an opening of the system, what? I mean, what are the political consequences that we seek to achieve? And I do distinguish between that and political goals (end the Fed, take money out of politics, etc.).

Also I'm not arguing a point with these questions, I would like to know everyone's opinion on this.

Well, I think they're going to start losing people if/when they start officially advocating policy positions. The point is to cast a wide net so the thing reaches critical mass -- it needs to keep growing. Ending our corrupt, crony capitalist system seems like a goal every sane person can get behind.

Fix the root issue first, then worry about policy.

[Sigz]

Ending our corrupt, crony capitalist system seems like a goal every sane person can get behind.

Fix the root issue first, then worry about policy.

But how do you do that without policy?

[antigoon]

I guess that was pretty unclear. By policy I mean things like tax rates and healthcare plans.

[Super Dude]

Right, but seriously, how do you do that without? What other possible avenue for response is there?

[antigoon]

I don't follow. How does eradicating the avenues for corruption have anything to do with specific legislation about healthcare, jobs, tax, etc?

[Super Dude]

In other words, how specifically do we eradicate elements of corruption?

[Scheavo]

Right, but seriously, how do you do that without? What other possible avenue for response is there?

I think what he's saying is that until we do with the corruption that exists, we actually won't deal with the other problems we need to get addressed, because anything passed will be corrupt. You won't get a fair tax code passed becuase corporate lobbyists don't want them closed. 

[Super Dude]

Yes, but I don't think anyone is challenging that claim. My question at least was how, other than through the enactment of policy, do we do away with corruption?

[antigoon]

Right, but seriously, how do you do that without? What other possible avenue for response is there?

I think what he's saying is that until we do with the corruption that exists, we actually won't deal with the other problems we need to get addressed, because anything passed will be corrupt. You won't get a fair tax code passed becuase corporate lobbyists don't want them closed. 

Exactly. I was also referring to the movement losing support by, let's say, advocating a single payer healthcare system. It attracts more people by keeping its goals broad and largely nondescript.

Yes, but I don't think anyone is challenging that claim. My question at least was how, other than through the enactment of policy, do we do away with corruption?

I clarified what I originally meant by policy in my initial post up the page. I misspoke. But I think the most logical (and difficult) way to do it is via some sort of Constitutional amendment. And yes, I'm aware the idea of that in this day and age sounds more than a bit pie in the sky, by how else is it supposed to get done?