Occupy Wall Street

[Abrupt]

So back to Occupy Wallstreet.  I just don't understand what they want.

http://occupywallst.org/about/

There a many more reasons that come from each individuals story. This is the primary focus of it.

Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work.

You forgot deliberately cheating the system and screwing people over.

I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more.  

This is an interesting article a friend shared with me over a month ago that I recommend you read-

The impetus behind the Occupy Wall Street movement - a vague sense that the rich are getting ever richer while everyone else suffers - was confirmed by a recent report from the Social Security Administration showing that while total employment and average wages remained stagnant, the number of people earning $1 million or more grew by 18% from 2009 to 2010.  Those figures give real substance to the "We are the 99%" slogan, yet Republicans continue to insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that if anything those "job creators" deserve an even greater share of our national income.  The Tea Party, meanwhile, has launched its own "53%" movement, inexplicably rallying the working class to the defense of the wealthy.  The one group rarely heard from in this rancorous debate is the 1%, whose incomes and taxes are its focus.  I am one of them, and here is my perspective, which may surprise you.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/21/1028500/-A-Voice-From-the-1

I am actually put off by the "solidarity" slogan and the fist image.  These being popular images of communism/socialism and such things.  Also the mentioning of Egypt and Tunisia being a motivator are, in themselves, enough to make me against the movements as the indicated importance of them suggests an imagery inspired movement and as such would be emotionally fueled.

The intentional identification of 'Republicans' reveals a political bias (and although I am not opposed to such usage at all I know those against the tax increases are not just from the ranks of Republicans and it makes the point seem disingenuous).  I also can only grin when I imagine what would happen if you removed the 1% from the equation.  Would the US be suddenly richer for this?  No, we would be far worse off and would most certainly enter into a depression that would last until some of those remaining could take up the mantle of the previous 1% and restore us to a point of motivation and success.

I tend to find the bulk of the greed residing within the OWS movement itself.  They want what others have much the same as children would another's toys.  They want more government involvement and regulations into areas where the primary source of our current dilemma is a direct result of such government involvement.  They would bind others gladly without realizing they are putting themselves on the exact same chain gang.

[Falconer02]

I am actually put off by the "solidarity" slogan and the fist image.  These being popular images of communism/socialism and such things.

Maybe we should take the stars off of the american flag because they can remind people of the positions of the red stars on the chinese flag?

Also the mentioning of Egypt and Tunisia being a motivator are, in themselves, enough to make me against the movements as the indicated importance of them suggests an imagery inspired movement and as such would be emotionally fueled.

They're going through a similar crisis that is physically worse than ours is. They want better managing of their systems as do we.

I also can only grin when I imagine what would happen if you removed the 1% from the equation.  Would the US be suddenly richer for this?  No, we would be far worse off and would most certainly enter into a depression that would last until some of those remaining could take up the mantle of the previous 1% and restore us to a point of motivation and success.

Who said anything about removing the 1%? Did I miss it? Again, that's not what the OWS protests are about. It's about fairness and how the dubbed 1% should have to play by the same rules as all other Americans do (like paying taxes- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html ). It's about keeping congress and lobbyist's further apart. As another article puts it- "This is not about communism, socialism, or class warfare. It’s not about soaking the rich or redistributing wealth to the poor. The Occupy Wall Street movement is about returning America to a system where hard working people in the bottom 99% have a chance to benefit in equal proportion to the top one percent. This is about making America the land of opportunity again."

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/15/occupy-wall-street-%E2%80%93-yes-it%E2%80%99s-about-handouts/
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/311/executive-pay.html
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/

[falcon9]

The intentional identification of 'Republicans' reveals a political bias (and although I am not opposed to such usage at all I know those against the tax increases are not just from the ranks of Republicans and it makes the point seem disingenuous). 

It isn't disingenuous to point out that republicans generally favor tax breaks for the wealthy and oppose national healthcare for those who aren't, (since they can afford it or get it free via Congressional/Senatorial benefits, why would they represent their constituents instead?).

I tend to find the bulk of the greed residing within the OWS movement itself.  They want what others have much the same as children would another's toys.  They want more government involvement and regulations into areas where the primary source of our current dilemma is a direct result of such government involvement.  They would bind others gladly without realizing they are putting themselves on the exact same chain gang.

The "government regulation" alluded vaguely to specifically refers to the shady derivatives instruments which fueled the economic crisis and directly lead to those corporate bailouts for big business.  Those among the OWS movement who find  such things 'imbalanced' do so correctly.

[monnee]

The Occupy Wall Street Movement is costing taxpayers millions of dollars in police, clean up, emt services etc, but is the cost affecting the 1% or the 99%?

[falcon9]

The Occupy Wall Street Movement is costing taxpayers millions of dollars in police, clean up, emt services etc, but is the cost affecting the 1% or the 99%?

The cost would be borne by who paid more taxes - which group would that be, the 1% or the 99%?

[Abrupt]

I am actually put off by the "solidarity" slogan and the fist image.  These being popular images of communism/socialism and such things.

Maybe we should take the stars off of the american flag because they can remind people of the positions of the red stars on the chinese flag?

Also the mentioning of Egypt and Tunisia being a motivator are, in themselves, enough to make me against the movements as the indicated importance of them suggests an imagery inspired movement and as such would be emotionally fueled.

They're going through a similar crisis that is physically worse than ours is. They want better managing of their systems as do we.

I also can only grin when I imagine what would happen if you removed the 1% from the equation.  Would the US be suddenly richer for this?  No, we would be far worse off and would most certainly enter into a depression that would last until some of those remaining could take up the mantle of the previous 1% and restore us to a point of motivation and success.

Who said anything about removing the 1%? Did I miss it? Again, that's not what the OWS protests are about. It's about fairness and how the dubbed 1% should have to play by the same rules as all other Americans do (like paying taxes- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html ). It's about keeping congress and lobbyist's further apart. As another article puts it- "This is not about communism, socialism, or class warfare. It’s not about soaking the rich or redistributing wealth to the poor. The Occupy Wall Street movement is about returning America to a system where hard working people in the bottom 99% have a chance to benefit in equal proportion to the top one percent. This is about making America the land of opportunity again."

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/15/occupy-wall-street-%E2%80%93-yes-it%E2%80%99s-about-handouts/
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/311/executive-pay.html
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/

Considering the Chinese flag was made over 170 years after ours and isn't even similar looking I don't see the connection.  OWS though is undeniably a socialist movement and populated by liberals/socialists/communists.

The people of Egypt and Tunisia are nothing like us, and any attempts to draw parallels will be based purely on imagery.  They do not think the same as us and they do not have the same values as we do.  What is good to them would likely not be to us and vice versa.

OWS identifies the 1% as the problem.  If you identify the problem then the logical step is to remove it from the equation and reevaluate.  If the result is worse off without the 'problem' then you can be immediately assured that the assumed 'problem' was incorrect.  All of this so called "fair rules" and such is pure smoke and mirrors.  Considering the 1% pay most of the taxes and the bulk of the OWS pay less than 1% of the taxes I would question how "fair" they actually want it.  To me it would be more fair for everyone to pay the same amount (not the same %) since we are all equal as people within this great nation.  Let us see just how willing these OWS would be to pay the same amount as the 1%!

[Abrupt]

The intentional identification of 'Republicans' reveals a political bias (and although I am not opposed to such usage at all I know those against the tax increases are not just from the ranks of Republicans and it makes the point seem disingenuous). 

It isn't disingenuous to point out that republicans generally favor tax breaks for the wealthy and oppose national healthcare for those who aren't, (since they can afford it or get it free via Congressional/Senatorial benefits, why would they represent their constituents instead?).

I tend to find the bulk of the greed residing within the OWS movement itself.  They want what others have much the same as children would another's toys.  They want more government involvement and regulations into areas where the primary source of our current dilemma is a direct result of such government involvement.  They would bind others gladly without realizing they are putting themselves on the exact same chain gang.

The "government regulation" alluded vaguely to specifically refers to the shady derivatives instruments which fueled the economic crisis and directly lead to those corporate bailouts for big business.  Those among the OWS movement who find  such things 'imbalanced' do so correctly.

I oppose national healthcare myself.  What is wrong with opposing slavery?  I also feel that a persons money is their own and that when a government extends beyond its enumerated powers that it has no claim to levy taxes based on any reasoning beyond what it is legally authorized to do.

Why isn't the OWS protesting against the government then?  The reason is because they are a tool of the liberal/socialist movement in America that is using class warfare and decisive tactics in an attempt to get Obama and the Democrats reelected.  They are trying to mimic the Tea Party movement but they don't posses an more of an understanding of what that was about now as they did when it started.

[falcon9]

OWS though is undeniably a socialist movement and populated by liberals/socialists/communists.

Undeniably?  Naturally, you have verifiable evidence for this claim which you are able to produce.



 

OWS identifies the 1% as the problem.  If you identify the problem then the logical step is to remove it from the equation and reevaluate.

No, the next logical step is to evaluate the variables to determine if changing them with regards to the 1% would positively affect the problem, (that's where removing the 1% isn't a viable option).

If the result is worse off without the 'problem' then you can be immediately assured that the assumed 'problem' was incorrect.

That's only partially accurate.  If the 'problem' is worse after the removal of the presumed cause of that problem, then there are at least two possibilities.  One, that the presumed cause wasn't the _entire_ cause for the problem or, that the presumed cause was unrelated to the problem.  If other factors contributed to the problem, (along with the 1%), then some progress has been made in 'solving' the problem and those other contributing factors can then be isolated and addressed. 

If the presumed cause was unrelated to the problem, removing it would have no effect, (positive or negative), on the "result".  If the result were a negative effect, then the presumed cause _was_ related to the problem and the removal just made the problem worse, (not a desirable result).

The more viable solution is to affect changes to the contibuting factors, (the 1% among them), until the desired result is achieved.  This may or may not ever occur.

All of this so called "fair rules" and such is pure smoke and mirrors.  Considering the 1% pay most of the taxes and the bulk of the OWS pay less than 1% of the taxes I would question how "fair" they actually want it.

This is incorrect.  According to the IRS, those of a middleclass income pay more taxes than those in the highest tax brackets.  Considering that the OWS participants 'appear' to consist of anyone _except_ the upper 1%, the the bulk of OWS participants are far more likely to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes.

To me it would be more fair for everyone to pay the same amount (not the same %) since we are all equal as people within this great nation.  Let us see just how willing these OWS would be to pay the same amount as the 1%!

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who makes $300,000 per year in taxable income should pay the same amount as someone else who makes $30,000 taxable, rather than a graduated percentage of their taxable income?  A flat tax rate benefits the weathy far more than the middle or lower income brackets.  Obviously, those who make far less than the 1% cannot afford to pay whatever amount in taxes the 1% haven't weaseled out of paying through write-offs their republican chorts finagled for them.
[/quote]

[Abrupt]

All of this so called "fair rules" and such is pure smoke and mirrors.  Considering the 1% pay most of the taxes and the bulk of the OWS pay less than 1% of the taxes I would question how "fair" they actually want it.

This is incorrect.  According to the IRS, those of a middleclass income pay more taxes than those in the highest tax brackets.  Considering that the OWS participants 'appear' to consist of anyone _except_ the upper 1%, the the bulk of OWS participants are far more likely to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes.

The middleclass do not pay more in taxes than those in the highest brackets and you are well aware of this or at least you should be.  Consider that some of these 1% draw no salary people often seem to get confused about this, especially when the data is misrepresented as it is here (you may not be deliberately doing it, but I give you credit for attention to detail and don't see how the facts could escape you).

To me it would be more fair for everyone to pay the same amount (not the same %) since we are all equal as people within this great nation.  Let us see just how willing these OWS would be to pay the same amount as the 1%!

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who makes $300,000 per year in taxable income should pay the same amount as someone else who makes $30,000 taxable, rather than a graduated percentage of their taxable income?  A flat tax rate benefits the weathy far more than the middle or lower income brackets.  Obviously, those who make far less than the 1% cannot afford to pay whatever amount in taxes the 1% haven't weaseled out of paying through write-offs their republican chorts finagled for them.

Yes I am suggesting this.  If you want to be fair then I see nothing fairer than paying equal amounts.  As long as their is a difference in the amounts (and honestly even in the deltas of percents) their will never be equality or freedom from class warfare, divisiveness, or corruption.  People would actually have to think about decisions when asking for tax increases that normally would never effect them, or asking for more government spending when normally they would never have to foot the bill.  Although you may not agree with me on the point, I would think you could see some reason and benefit of such an approach (perhaps if only in an even percentage increase in taxes for all and percentage decrease in hand outs for those not paying).

[falcon9]

The middleclass do not pay more in taxes than those in the highest brackets and you are well aware of this or at least you should be.  Consider that some of these 1% draw no salary people often seem to get confused about this, especially when the data is misrepresented as it is here (you may not be deliberately doing it, but I give you credit for attention to detail and don't see how the facts could escape you).

There was no implied or stated data misrepresentation in regards to taxation.  There are more middle and lower income people, (the 99%), than there are higher income people, (the 1%).  Of those 99% who pay taxes, the total amount paid in aggregate is greater than the total paid by the 1% highest income who pay taxes.  Taxes are due based upon income and those who draw no salary do not fall under that taxation parameter so, mentioning them is an irrelevant disversion.  Overall, the middle income tax payers do pay more as a 'class' of tax-payers than the 1% highest earning tax-payers do as a group.  For instance, in 2005 people in the upper 1% income bracket paid 27% of the taxes collected while everyone else paid the remaining 73%.  
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/12/how-much-taxes-are-paid-by-the-poor-middle-class-and-rich/

To me it would be more fair for everyone to pay the same amount (not the same %) since we are all equal as people within this great nation.  Let us see just how willing these OWS would be to pay the same amount as the 1%!

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who makes $300,000 per year in taxable income should pay the same amount as someone else who makes $30,000 taxable, rather than a graduated percentage of their taxable income?  A flat tax rate benefits the weathy far more than the middle or lower income brackets.  Obviously, those who make far less than the 1% cannot afford to pay whatever amount in taxes the 1% haven't weaseled out of paying through write-offs their republican chorts finagled for them.

Yes I am suggesting this.  If you want to be fair then I see nothing fairer than paying equal amounts.  As long as their is a difference in the amounts (and honestly even in the deltas of percents) their will never be equality or freedom from class warfare, divisiveness, or corruption.  

What "class warfare", or is this a euphemism?  There has always been some divide between those who have what others do not.  Most tax-related "corruption" stems from those who have sufficient income to desire to pay as little tax as possible on enormous capital gains, (through loopholes, shelters and accounting sleight-of-hand manuevers which are generally unavailable to the 99%).

People would actually have to think about decisions when asking for tax increases that normally would never effect them, or asking for more government spending when normally they would never have to foot the bill.

Given that in 2005 at least, (I haven't seen data for the more recent years since), 73% of the total taxes collected were from the 99%ers who are footing most of the bill for government spending.  Whereas the 1% who pay 27% of collected taxes seem to have a much greater effect upon political policies related to taxation and 'pork barrel' projects than the working slob.

Although you may not agree with me on the point, I would think you could see some reason and benefit of such an approach (perhaps if only in an even percentage increase in taxes for all and percentage decrease in hand outs for those not paying).

Not really, no.  That's probably because the 1% often do not end up paying the same percentage in taxes that the 99% do, (due to those aforementioned tax shelters, loopholes and other tax 'breaks' afforded by their republican pals in Congress).  By the way, Thirteen firms receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout money owed a total of more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes in 2009.
 
http://theworldlink.com/news/local/article_fc5d0cbe-5eaa-5240-aa2a-45aa013aa905.html#ixzz1f8GysZIX

[Abrupt]

The middleclass do not pay more in taxes than those in the highest brackets and you are well aware of this or at least you should be.  Consider that some of these 1% draw no salary people often seem to get confused about this, especially when the data is misrepresented as it is here (you may not be deliberately doing it, but I give you credit for attention to detail and don't see how the facts could escape you).

There was no implied or stated data misrepresentation in regards to taxation.  There are more middle and lower income people, (the 99%), than there are higher income people, (the 1%).  Of those 99% who pay taxes, the total amount paid in aggregate is greater than the total paid by the 1% highest income who pay taxes.  Taxes are due based upon income and those who draw no salary do not fall under that taxation parameter so, mentioning them is an irrelevant disversion.  Overall, the middle income tax payers do pay more as a 'class' of tax-payers than the 1% highest earning tax-payers do as a group.  For instance, in 2005 people in the upper 1% income bracket paid 27% of the taxes collected while everyone else paid the remaining 73%.  
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/12/how-much-taxes-are-paid-by-the-poor-middle-class-and-rich/

You specifically said middle class, not 99% and there is a major difference.  The middle class do not pay more in taxes than the 1%, but that is also an unfair comparison anyways regardless of which side presents it as you will see the numbers considered within the middle class stretched or deflated to make whatever point you want with them and when using such an abstract description it can only be considered rhetoric.  OWS does not represent the 99% who are not within the top 1% and you well know this.  They take a position of being anti 1% so as to present the illusion that they are the other 99% but they are not.  Mostly they are the 46% who pay no taxes and a mixture of some of the 1% who have a vested interest in seeing Democrats reelected (did you ever do any research to see how many of the 1% support OWS and start to wonder what is really going on here?).  

To me it would be more fair for everyone to pay the same amount (not the same %) since we are all equal as people within this great nation.  Let us see just how willing these OWS would be to pay the same amount as the 1%!

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who makes $300,000 per year in taxable income should pay the same amount as someone else who makes $30,000 taxable, rather than a graduated percentage of their taxable income?  A flat tax rate benefits the weathy far more than the middle or lower income brackets.  Obviously, those who make far less than the 1% cannot afford to pay whatever amount in taxes the 1% haven't weaseled out of paying through write-offs their republican chorts finagled for them.

Yes I am suggesting this.  If you want to be fair then I see nothing fairer than paying equal amounts.  As long as their is a difference in the amounts (and honestly even in the deltas of percents) their will never be equality or freedom from class warfare, divisiveness, or corruption.  

What "class warfare", or is this a euphemism?  There has always been some divide between those who have what others do not.  Most tax-related "corruption" stems from those who have sufficient income to desire to pay as little tax as possible on enormous capital gains, (through loopholes, shelters and accounting sleight-of-hand manuevers which are generally unavailable to the 99%).

Remember what capital gains is before you attempt to put it into a bad light.  You should realize that capital gains is the result of a gambled investment that the government expects the rich to wager for both the chance of profit for those investing and the profit and growth of our nation.  

People would actually have to think about decisions when asking for tax increases that normally would never effect them, or asking for more government spending when normally they would never have to foot the bill.

Given that in 2005 at least, (I haven't seen data for the more recent years since), 73% of the total taxes collected were from the 99%ers who are footing most of the bill for government spending.  Whereas the 1% who pay 27% of collected taxes seem to have a much greater effect upon political policies related to taxation and 'pork barrel' projects than the working slob.

Over 46% of those 99% are taking out more than they are putting in and when we present that 99% in a truer light your illusion begins to fade.  The influence that the 1% has upon political policies stems only from the governments intentional meddling into areas where it has no authority.  The OWS seems to want even more of this meddling which would ever increase this which could only ever increase this influence most seem to detest.  When you handcuff a suspected criminal to yourself you have also handcuffed yourself to the suspected criminal so do not forget that your path now becomes entwined with his and you become subject to his movements just as he is to yours.

Although you may not agree with me on the point, I would think you could see some reason and benefit of such an approach (perhaps if only in an even percentage increase in taxes for all and percentage decrease in hand outs for those not paying).

Not really, no.  That's probably because the 1% often do not end up paying the same percentage in taxes that the 99% do, (due to those aforementioned tax shelters, loopholes and other tax 'breaks' afforded by their republican pals in Congress).  By the way, Thirteen firms receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout money owed a total of more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes in 2009.
 
http://theworldlink.com/news/local/article_fc5d0cbe-5eaa-5240-aa2a-45aa013aa905.html#ixzz1f8GysZIX

There actually were about 94,500 millionaires who paid a smaller share in taxes than the next lower 10 million people, but did the pay less in taxes?  No, they didn't and these 94,500 also didn't draw a paycheck and made their money strictly by investing and helping out others who needed the money (Well I took liberties there and stretched that and honestly I would say they strictly wanted to make a profit and invested into where they thought they had the best chance to make a profit at the least risk of losing their investment.  I did this to demonstrate how you can present something in a way as to show it grander than its reality and you have also done the same, but without the qualification -- but hey that is part of debate).  Don't lay this at the feet of Republicans, it is all of them and congress expects these wealthy to provide the basis for jobs and most certainly has tried many ways to encourage them to invest in the economy.  Remember, this is money the rich already have and if you want them to gamble it back into the economy you are going to have to make certain assurances that they will not be penalized for doing this.  Would you rather them just keep all their money and not invest it?  To put it another way, would you loan me $50,000 with the agreement that if I lose it I owe you nothing, but if I make a profit I owe you 20% of that profit?  How about if you had to pay 60% in taxes on the 20% of profit you might make?  I bet neither of those sounds like a very good deal to you but yet the first is basically what these investors do today and the later is what the OWS movement want.

[superteacher]

I am compltetely for the movement. I believe that "You deserve what you do and you earn what you should earn." It is not right that someone becomes a fat cat by doing some faulty misleading financial behaviours to other people.

[falcon9]

The middle class do not pay more in taxes than the 1%, but that is also an unfair comparison anyways regardless of which side presents it as you will see the numbers considered within the middle class stretched or deflated to make whatever point you want with them and when using such an abstract description it can only be considered rhetoric.

I used the IRS stats for 2009 to catagorize which income brackets paid what amount of taxes. These stats are neither "abstract", "stretched" nor "deflated"; they represent the raw data.  Using such unsupported hyperbole as "abstract", "stretched" or "deflated" to inaccurately detract from the mathematical result of IRS data is, however empty rhetoric.

OWS does not represent the 99% who are not within the top 1% and you well know this.

How are you determining what I do and do not know?  The Occupy Wall Streeters claim to represent the 99% rather then the 1%.  I'm not sure why the wealthier 1% would camp out in tents and risk arrest unless as a diversionary tactic, ('they went thatta way - git 'em!')?  Any theories?
 

They take a position of being anti 1% so as to present the illusion that they are the other 99% but they are not.  Mostly they are the 46% who pay no taxes and a mixture of some of the 1% who have a vested interest in seeing Democrats reelected (did you ever do any research to see how many of the 1% support OWS and start to wonder what is really going on here?).

How do you know this; have you got any reliable source references for these assertions?


Given that in 2005 at least, (I haven't seen data for the more recent years since), 73% of the total taxes collected were from the 99%ers who are footing most of the bill for government spending.  Whereas the 1% who pay 27% of collected taxes seem to have a much greater effect upon political policies related to taxation and 'pork barrel' projects than the working slob.
[/quote]

Over 46% of those 99% are taking out more than they are putting in and when we present that 99% in a truer light your illusion begins to fade.

Your undefined sources for this 46% notwithstanding, you brought up getting more out than being paid in taxes.  I also noted that in regards to "pork barrel" projects kicking billions in tax-payer money back to the larger corporations employing PACs.  It's not clear whether the 'pork' outpaces the 'entitlement' programs however, the 99% do pay more in taxes than the corporations utilizing tax write-offs, loopholes, restructuring, goverment subsidies/fat pork barrel contracts and other dodges in order to pay as little taxes as possible.


 

There actually were about 94,500 millionaires who paid a smaller share in taxes than the next lower 10 million people, but did the pay less in taxes?  No, they didn't and these 94,500 also didn't draw a paycheck and made their money strictly by investing ...

Capital gains are taxed as income, whether the earner draws a paycheck or not.  So, you are conceding that 94,500 millionaires who make their money investing, (in anticipation of capital gains, or losses which can be written-off), paid less the the next tax bracket of 10 million people, (and less than the larger brackets below this, by extension).  Before you demure, I'm using your own statement above to discern this.
 

Don't lay this at the feet of Republicans, it is all of them and congress expects these wealthy to provide the basis for jobs and most certainly has tried many ways to encourage them to invest in the economy.

Actually, there are wealthy republicans and wealthy democrats - both seek to shield their wealth and that of their wealthy supporters.
 

Remember, this is money the rich already have and if you want them to gamble it back into the economy you are going to have to make certain assurances that they will not be penalized for doing this.  Would you rather them just keep all their money and not invest it?  To put it another way, would you loan me $50,000 with the agreement that if I lose it I owe you nothing, but if I make a profit I owe you 20% of that profit?  How about if you had to pay 60% in taxes on the 20% of profit you might make?  I bet neither of those sounds like a very good deal to you but yet the first is basically what these investors do today and the later is what the OWS movement want.

In a market-driven economy, there are no ironclad assurances for returns on investmenting in "the economy", (such as rehiring laid-off employees).  However, if those companies sitting on billions of dollars would 'invest' some of it in hiring people in large numbers, those people would spend some of that income, (putting it back into the economy and into corporate pockets by inclusion).  This is a basic economic principle and why it escapes the unltra-conservative CEOs escapes my extrapolations, (of sure, they could be dumb, greedy, short-sighted or any number of less flattering descriptors but, I have only circumstantial data to support such theories).

[hawkeye3210]

The middleclass do not pay more in taxes than those in the highest brackets and you are well aware of this or at least you should be.  Consider that some of these 1% draw no salary people often seem to get confused about this, especially when the data is misrepresented as it is here (you may not be deliberately doing it, but I give you credit for attention to detail and don't see how the facts could escape you).

There was no implied or stated data misrepresentation in regards to taxation.  There are more middle and lower income people, (the 99%), than there are higher income people, (the 1%).  Of those 99% who pay taxes, the total amount paid in aggregate is greater than the total paid by the 1% highest income who pay taxes.  Taxes are due based upon income and those who draw no salary do not fall under that taxation parameter so, mentioning them is an irrelevant disversion.  Overall, the middle income tax payers do pay more as a 'class' of tax-payers than the 1% highest earning tax-payers do as a group.  For instance, in 2005 people in the upper 1% income bracket paid 27% of the taxes collected while everyone else paid the remaining 73%.  
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/12/how-much-taxes-are-paid-by-the-poor-middle-class-and-rich/

Did you even read the paragraph above the chart from your link?
"Here is a graph showing how the rich make more income and pay even more in taxes. While the  upper middle class pay about the same percentage in taxes as the make. Finally the lower 60% pay less in taxes then their % of the nation income."

Your link doesn't even support your own argument.  Classifying anyone outside the 1% as middle or lower class is just flawed logic.  I don't care where you want to draw the line, but there is nothing "middle" about the top 10%.

[sammywantsya]

i think its stupid.. if pple complain wtf are they gonna get in life. i know there is standing up to them but its getting ridulouse..