Occupy Wallstreet.

johnson1010 · Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:27 am

Here's an excellent letter to the 53% guy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/1 ... hat-53-Guy

It outlines, i think, the progressive point of view very well.

I am fully on board with this letter.

Robert Tulip · Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:18 pm

There is a rather frightening fascist tendency in the USA, indicated in the linked discussion. The idea that people should just love being exploited because it makes them tough and competitive is dangerous, and serves the interests of a plutocratic elite. Fascism encourages people to welcome their own oppression. The USA is in some danger of allowing Wall Street to take over democracy. I looked up the 53% reference in the letter and found it here, with the argument that the 'occupy wall street movement' is a bunch of spongers and losers, while the 53% are those who pay tax. This is a really complicated argument. Growth requires competition, but stability requires cooperation. It is a dialectic.

JohnGNelson · Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:37 pm

I support what the Occupy Wall Street folks are doing. I love the 99% aspect. I'm not a freeloader... I'm a healthcare executive and retired Air Force Master Sergeant. The press will try to discredit the movement by showing a few marginal folks who are there.... but there are many of us who support their ideas. I'm a 99er. A proud member of the working-class and I believe it's time for real change... New social engineering where 400 people don't control more wealth than that of half of all Americans' wealth put together.... and that 1% controls nearly 80% of the national wealth.

I've feared the rise of Social Darwinism in America. In fact, I wrote a dystopia about the post-9/11 landscape called Against Nature. A global pandemic is the catalyst and the nation quickly plunges into a dystopian society... I fear we're not too far from it now. In my novel I used many of the misdeeds of Bush/Cheney and I put the Tea Party Social Darwinists in charge.... the end result was a frightening and all too plausable dystopian thriller

President Camacho · Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:59 am

It's promising to see this type of behavior. It'll also be interesting to see how it all plays out. I hope a worthy leader emerges from this gaggle.

geo · Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:55 pm

The writer makes some good points, but there's an underlying assumption that simply by increasing our taxes on the wealthy, we will automatically have better health care, education, etc. I don't share his confidence that a bigger government will ever mean anything but more waste, fraud, and a continued move towards a welfare state. To see what happens when a government's spending exceeds its revenues, look no further than what is happening in Greece, Spain, and Italy.

The Wall Street movement has at least one thing right and that is that big business has way too much influence. Our government has to represent all of the people or it simply doesn't work. I do think the wealthy can pay a higher share of taxes in America, but I also think such tax increases can only go so far before the law of unintended consequences kicks. Corporations and businesses actually creates wealth and if the government intrudes too much in our system of free enterprise it stifles the economy and everyone loses.

tjamesmoss.author · Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:33 pm


	Robert Tulip wrote: There is a rather frightening fascist tendency in the USA, indicated in the linked discussion. The idea that people should just love being exploited because it makes them tough and competitive is dangerous, and serves the interests of a plutocratic elite. Fascism encourages people to welcome their own oppression. The USA is in some danger of allowing Wall Street to take over democracy. I looked up the 53% reference in the letter and found it here, with the argument that the 'occupy wall street movement' is a bunch of spongers and losers, while the 53% are those who pay tax. This is a really complicated argument. Growth requires competition, but stability requires cooperation. It is a dialectic.

I just want to thank you for using the phrase "plutocratic elite," and I'm wondering why I haven't heard it thrown around more in learned circles. That's a brilliant explanation of what is happening to us and to our world.

Dexter · Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:34 pm

He should have called him "kid" a few more times to be extra condescending.


	Quote: Here’s how a liberal looks at it: a long time ago workers in this country realized that industrialization wasn’t making their lives better, but worse.

That might be how a "liberal" looks at it, but that's a pretty distorted view of history. Basically you're complaining that industrialization didn't go from farming to modern factory jobs instantaneously, while romanticizing the life of the farmer.

geo · Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:21 pm

Dexter wrote:

He should have called him "kid" a few more times to be extra condescending.


	Quote: Here’s how a liberal looks at it: a long time ago workers in this country realized that industrialization wasn’t making their lives better, but worse.

That might be how a "liberal" looks at it, but that's a pretty distorted view of history. Basically you're complaining that industrialization didn't go from farming to modern factory jobs instantaneously, while romanticizing the life of the farmer.

Another point in this piece that is fairly skewed. The American dream is different for everyone and is not arrived at by a precise number of hours in the work week. One person might like living in a small apartment with no lawn maintenance and just enough money to go out and see a movie on the weekend. Someone else might want to live in a fancy house, big yard, a boat, nice cars, etc. One dream probably requires more work hours than another. The "kid" wasn't complaining about how many hours he worked.

The writer seems to expect the government to be there to lend a helping hand for anyone who gets into trouble. That may not be as easy to accomplish as he makes out. Nothing in life is guaranteed and real life has many bumps along the road We simply can't rely on the government to take away the pain and uncertainty of reality. To think the government can is probably unrealistic at best and dangerously over-dependent at worse.

Interbane · Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:55 pm


	Quote: The writer seems to expect the government to be there to lend a helping hand for anyone who gets into trouble.

For the ideas discussed, the government is deeply involved. Income disparity has grown tremendously since the 1960's, as a result of policy drift and deregulation. Those are government controlled variables. The government is tasked with regulating the wealth inequality. There is no one else to do that job. It is extremely complex, and rife with pro's and con's from multiple points of view. As complex as it is, the numbers don't lie. That's why it's taken so long for the mass public to realize what's happening, the numbers are finally at a point where you can't deny the implications.

Interbane · Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:10 pm


	Quote: I do think the wealthy can pay a higher share of taxes in America, but I also think such tax increases can only go so far before the law of unintended consequences kicks. Corporations and businesses actually creates wealth and if the government intrudes too much in our system of free enterprise it stifles the economy and everyone loses.

That's part of the problem. The policy has slowly drifted to the point where inequality sparks mass outrage. With mass outrage usually comes change in larger chunks, rather than a slow steady drift. I believe the highest bracket tax rate would be sustainable at 50%, perhaps more. Not as high as it had been earlier this century, but higher than it is now. But to jump to that percentage in a single shot would wreak havoc. We must drift towards the number, rather than jump towards it. The problem is, as soon as the drift reaches a certain point, the grassroots movement will die, and the plutocracy will once again have the upper hand to reverse the drift.

An idealized government would realize that over taxation of the wealthy is every bit as harmful as under-taxation. Many of our founding fathers wrote about this at great length. They realized that both sides are dangerous, so the middle ground must be diligently held to. The middle ground has meant a 91% tax rate for decades on the wealthiest of Americans. Strange that a number that high would represent the "middle ground", but history has shown us that it was a sustainable rate. What would unsustainable have been? 92%? 95%? 99%?

We have obviously gone much too far in the opposite direction, and I say that while still tipping my hat to the dangers of over taxation. Balance is key, and we are unbalanced as a nation.

Dexter · Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:33 pm


	Interbane wrote: That's part of the problem. The policy has slowly drifted to the point where inequality sparks mass outrage. With mass outrage usually comes change in larger chunks, rather than a slow steady drift. I believe the highest bracket tax rate would be sustainable at 50%, perhaps more. Not as high as it had been earlier this century, but higher than it is now. But to jump to that percentage in a single shot would wreak havoc. We must drift towards the number, rather than jump towards it. The problem is, as soon as the drift reaches a certain point, the grassroots movement will die, and the plutocracy will once again have the upper hand to reverse the drift.

But inequality and tax rates are not the real problem, it's the crony capitalism. On that issue, I'm in agreement with the protesters. But many are just adding their pet projects to the cause, and have pretty naive views on what regulations can accomplish, and how many there already are. People want to give some committee power over billion dollar decisions, and then wonder how they get captured by corporations.

DWill · Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:31 pm

The increasing income inequality must be related to the steep drop in the marginal tax rates that the highest earners pay. I was amazed at the figures on the top marginal rates interbane cited from 70 years ago, but looking them up I see he is right. That represents quite a momentous change in govt. policy, and it would seem difficult to claim that with the top rate now at 35% (vs. the historical high of 94%), we've become much better at creating jobs, due to the ballyhooed trickle-down.

However I don't think much of Pres. Obama's leadership regarding the whole deficit/debt mess. Taxing "millionaires" (defined as those earning $250,000 or more) at even 50% of their income would cut into the debt by only about 10%. Another of Obama's talking points--the write-off for depreciation on corporate jets--is just kind of silly because it is a very minor amount. According to the Washington Post last week, the govt. took in last year just very slightly more than it gave out in the form of deductions and breaks. This largesse is spread all up and down the income ladder, with around 50% of all earners either paying no tax or coming out a little ahead. The majority of this percentage isn't the rich (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donal ... income-tax.). So it seems we're in a "Pogo" situation that belies the simplistic thinking coming from the Wall Street protesters: "We have met the enemy and they are us."

I wish Obama would be more statesman-like and less political on this issue. He should ask that we all be willing to sacrifice. Income inequality should be a huge concern, but should it be addressed by sudden govt. fiat? I don't think so. I also think that nearly all Americans should pay some tax, which makes them more like stakeholders in the country.

geo · Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:40 pm

That is surprising—the 35% versus the historical high of 94%. I do agree that things are out of whack. Bush started two wars and didn't even want to raise taxes to pay for them. Where's the sense of sacrifice and national unity towards a common cause? The whole Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco was a failure of the whole government (as much as each side tries to blame the other).

As for increasing the taxes for the highest earners, again I think that will only help matters to a degree. Interbane is right that we've been going off course slowly for such a long time that a large steering correction is now required, but I think it's something much bigger than raising taxes. Our entire political process seems rather tainted, but there's no dialogue to fix anything, only this pointless and bitter partisan bickering. Eventually things will get so bad that one side or another—for some reason, I always think it's going to be the ultra right wing—will use military force and take over. As Ben Franklin said, "we must hang together, or we will be pretty sure to hang separately."

Interbane · Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:42 am

The tax rate on the highest earners is the tip of the iceberg. Below, out of sight, there are a ton of loopholes, which likely amount to more than what would be gained from raising income tax to 50%. But the tip of the iceberg is an easily visible marker for how far taxation has drifted to favoring the rich. It's not that it's necessarily the "rich", because many of these loopholes are available to anyone. But not everyone has the money to hire a full time tax agent(or 20) to maximize loophole usage.

There is also the problem of campaign funding. Money wins campaigns. It's turned into a Manchurian Democracy, where the need to raise money puts politicians in the debt of private interests. Grassroots campaigns like Obama's was good, but he still relied heavily on larger donations. If the politician turns a cold shoulder to his largest contributors after he's won the election, lobbyists will make sure he doesn't win another election. This is because the lobbyists are organized and work together, representing multiple corporations. Offending one corporation is the same as offending a dozen, due to whatever lobbyists they have in common.

Chris OConnor · Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:18 am

Some quick thoughts...

I think something is drastically wrong with how a government is spending tax revenue if any income bracket is taxed above 35%.

Then again it is thoroughly disgusting to see people earning hundreds of millions per year while the majority of people in the USA are struggling to make ends meet.

I don't consider a family earning $250,000 per year to be automatically classified as wealthy. If a husband and wife have a combined income of $250,000 they aren't necessarily rich. There simply are too many other factors involved for us to judge so quickly.

A husband and wife could earn $250,000 per year but have $300,000 in college loans to repay for their medical degrees. They could earn $250,000 per year yet have $110,000 in annual medical malpractice insurance.

A husband and wife that own a small company that brings in $350,000 in annual revenue could be struggling every week to put food on their families table. There are other variables in the equation that have to be considered such as gross vs. net revenue. How much of the $350k are they taking out of the business as income? What is the profit margin?

A final thought. On the surface I want to say that everyone should be taxed at a flat rate and that rate should be about 18% of gross income. I know this isn't feasible. I'm aware that people at the lower end of the income spectrum cannot afford to pay a damn penny, while an 18% tax rate would simply not generate enough total tax revenue. But on the surface it does seem fair that everyone pays the same rate. It just can't happen and never will.

Forum rules

Occupy Wallstreet. Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!