"Banks got Bailed Out We got Sold Out" reason for US Marches

acropolis said:

A major contributing factor to the quoted statistic is that capital gains tax is only 15%, and the highest income earners earn the majority of their income from capital gains, effectively lowering their tax rate. The effective tax rate, that is, the total percentage of income lost to taxes, for the richest 1% has hovered around 20% for the last thirty years or so.

Click to expand...

Right, I get that. So two things:
1) Is that bad? We saw capital gains revenue to the government skyrocket when the rate was cut and the market went up. It was really a win win for everybody, unless the goal was just to get the rich to pay more percent, rather than more dollars.

2) That doesn't answer my question about how it's figured that everyone pays 40%. I really would like to see some actual numbers on that.

DieHappy said:

I'd guess a married with 2 kids guy working for upper 20s and renting probably pays less than 15% total tax.

Click to expand...

When looking at overall tax rate you have to factor in embedded taxes in things like rent.

The reason simple. Take the premise that every tax is paid by some enitity. If property taxes increase rent will go up. That means that the entity that owns the property isn't really paying the tax they are passing it on to their renters. Therefore property taxes are part of the overall tax rate of renters.

DieHappy said:

Right, I get that. So two things:
1) Is that bad? We saw capital gains revenue to the government skyrocket when the rate was cut and the market went up. It was really a win win for everybody, unless the goal was just to get the rich to pay more percent, rather than more dollars.

2) That doesn't answer my question about how it's figured that everyone pays 40%. I really would like to see some actual numbers on that.

Click to expand...

I know that I don't pay 40%

MachZer0 said:

I know that I don't pay 40%

Click to expand...

Are you sure? How much do you pay in property taxes? How much in sales tax? How much in embedded taxes in your phone, cell phone, cable and utility bills? We pay a lot of taxes in a lot of different places.

kermit said:

Are you sure? How much do you pay in property taxes? How much in sales tax? How much in embedded taxes in your phone, cell phone, cable and utility bills? We pay a lot of taxes in a lot of different places.

Click to expand...

I'm very sure

DieHappy said:

Right, I get that. So two things:
1) Is that bad? We saw capital gains revenue to the government skyrocket when the rate was cut and the market went up. It was really a win win for everybody, unless the goal was just to get the rich to pay more percent, rather than more dollars.

2) That doesn't answer my question about how it's figured that everyone pays 40%. I really would like to see some actual numbers on that.

Click to expand...

1) Cite that.

One purpose of the progressive tax system, aside from it's primary goal of reducing the human cost of taxes for all individuals, is to reducing the concentration of wealth, and therefore power, in the hands of the few. In a world where bribes and even legal political campaign contributions are a reality, it's unwise to have a tiny group of people hold such a massive chunk of a nation's wealth, since it leads to problems with corruption and political power being purchased. It's anathema to a just system of government and should be avoided, and one way to do that is via a progressive scale of taxes. Though the first and main goal is still to equally spread out the suffering which results from taxation to the individual.

2) I was trying to add light to why it would be that the highest income earners would have a lower effective tax rate, not defend that particular statistic.

BlessEwe said:

I walked in the San Francisco peaceful protest yesterday and saw people from both parties united for the same reasons. Obama oked the bailout and other protesters before him got us into this mess by allowing bills getting passed for many corporate interests which affects all of us. I hear people on both sides complaining about what is going on with our home loss, job loss ect.

I do not think any politician can fix our mess in America right now, sure they can all talk a bunch of hopeful things including Obama, but its up to us to stand up and take back control of what is happening.

Did you know that people get big $$ to keep America divided. See past all of that and look into things yourself with open minds.

Its not going away, it is only going to get bigger.

I agree with many things of the tea party..But it was started by the crooked Koch brothers money, I do not trust that at all for it is for there own agenda using innocent people.

Click to expand...

I agree that the Koch brothers are funding the current "Tea Party" agenda, which pretty much ruins it for ordinary voters. I agree with this totally.

What I don't agree with is your statement in the thread title which says, "Banks Got Bailed Out, We Got Sold Out" because Obama is trying to get the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau going, which is supposed to protect the rest of us from those banks. The GOP is blocking it -- they are the ones who have sold us out. I say this as a former Republican, and I was very reluctant to come to this conclusion, I assure you.

The Bailouts were to protect investors and employees - it wouldn't have been good for people (many of whom are retired, mind you) to lose money on their investments or for employees to lose their jobs. Let the banks fail, and that would have happened. I believe the President is trying to protect everyone who would have been hurt even more by the banks' failures. But the GOP is blocking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- they won't confirm a director for it, which leaves it, and the rest of us consumers, in limbo.

Relevant:

It's possible some of the protestors don't know why things have gotten so bad.

But they are trying to get the attention of lawmakers. My local paper summed this up best - they said that the most effective way to communicate dissatisfaction to lawmakers is to show up at the polls and vote. Of course, this presupposes that people will be able to figure out what happened. I think they do know, thanks to the GOP's obstructionism with the Jobs Bill and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. People who didn't vote in 2010 are unhappy now -- there is no question about that. They have only themselves to blame -- but they can correct it by showing up in 2012. Yes, get their state-issued ID's if they have to, and just get on with it.

Assuredcw said:

It's possible some of the protestors don't know why things have gotten so bad.

But they are trying to get the attention of lawmakers. My local paper summed this up best - they said that the most effective way to communicate dissatisfaction to lawmakers is to show up at the polls and vote. Of course, this presupposes that people will be able to figure out what happened. I think they do know, thanks to the GOP's obstructionism with the Jobs Bill and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. People who didn't vote in 2010 are unhappy now -- there is no question about that. They have only themselves to blame -- but they can correct it by showing up in 2012. Yes, get their state-issued ID's if they have to, and just get on with it.

Click to expand...

Is that necessarily true though? I feel most of the OWS protesters don't believe that. Otherwise they'd be occupying DC. They feel, justifiably I think, that no matter who they vote in, the big money will still get it's way. This feels especially true after Obama. After all that hope and change rhetoric, he became Bush's third term. You've got people on both sides marching up and down saying we should "throw the bas- out," but that ignores that the next group will just get bought instead. We need to show our disapproval for the money in politics, and you do that by protesting those writing the checks.

acropolis said:

1) Cite that.

Click to expand...

Maybe later.

One purpose of the progressive tax system, aside from it's primary goal of reducing the human cost of taxes for all individuals, is to reducing the concentration of wealth, and therefore power, in the hands of the few. In a world where bribes and even legal political campaign contributions are a reality, it's unwise to have a tiny group of people hold such a massive chunk of a nation's wealth, since it leads to problems with corruption and political power being purchased. It's anathema to a just system of government and should be avoided, and one way to do that is via a progressive scale of taxes. Though the first and main goal is still to equally spread out the suffering which results from taxation to the individual

Click to expand...

Sure, and I'm not sure if it's in effect or just part of a plan that's being talked about but the capital gains tax is now or going to be progressive. A second tier of 30% at some sort of cutoff. And I'm fine with that.

acropolis said:

Relevant:

Click to expand...

Douglas Schoen: Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd - WSJ.com


They do know why they're protesting, and it's good old fashioned "gimme gimme gimme".

Umaro said:

Is that necessarily true though? I feel most of the OWS protesters don't believe that. Otherwise they'd be occupying DC. They feel, justifiably I think, that no matter who they vote in, the big money will still get it's way. This feels especially true after Obama. After all that hope and change rhetoric, he became Bush's third term. You've got people on both sides marching up and down saying we should "throw the bas- out," but that ignores that the next group will just get bought instead. We need to show our disapproval for the money in politics, and you do that by protesting those writing the checks.

Click to expand...

But laws against writing those checks impinge on the first amendment. We need to protest the people who's character is so weak they can be bought. We need to vote for people of stronger moral character.

BlessEwe said:

Ummmm Very strange that you do not see what each saying has in common, I see a few extra ones in the cartoon with made up signs or ones I never saw. Almost exactly what the Tea Party wants, but is run by the $$$ of people Not by the foundation of the Koch brothers.

1. Too much power given to our leaders whom we are suppose to trust and are passing laws for their own benefits and profit.

Click to expand...

In other words, people don't bother to keep up with what is going on, or worse, they let Fox News (or even CNN or MSNBC) tell them. This information is only found in written form. I like to go to Congress.org, and you can get email updates regarding what your Congressmen are voting for if you sign up. Google the bill in question to get a summary if you don't understand it -- this will be worth your time. You should also read a daily newspaper.

DieHappy said:

But laws against writing those checks impinge on the first amendment. We need to protest the people who's character is so weak they can be bought. We need to vote for people of stronger moral character.

Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a politician that can't be bought. That's just being naive. Everyone has a price when they're up for reelection. However, there's nothing wrong with requiring a name attached to the free speech. The first amendment guarantees no sort of anonymity. That would be a great first step. The second would be changing the laws to say that corporations to not get the same free speech rights as living, breathing, real people. Fictitious people do not get the same rights as real people unless they get the same penalties, taxes, and everything else under the sun as well. Since you can't guarantee that, then fictitious people don't get the first amendment either.

kermit said:

Nope. This is a case of a group demoaning corporatism.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." -- Sinclair Lewis, 1935

<cough>...TEA Party ...<cough>

Click to expand...

By the way, I forgot to mention that your Sinclair Lewis quote is phony, sort of like that Shakespeare Quote from Barbra Streisand, the one that never happened.