Occupy Wall Street

[falcon9]

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."

"The same percentage" does not equate to the same amount of taxes paid.  That link shows that the upper 1% income bracket pays 27% of the taxes collected while the remaining 99% pay 70% of the taxes collected.  Of the total taxes collected, the lower 99% of tax-payers pay 43% more
of the collected taxes than the upper 1% do.   Percentage of income is a misleading factor since 10% of $1 million is a much different number than 10% of $30,000, ($100,000 vs. $3,000 ... still 10% but, wide variance in bottonline dollar amounts).

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%.

Since I didn't classify the remaining 99% of tax-payers as "middle" but, as 'middle and lower income tax-payers', there is no flawed logic involved.
The link divides tax-payers into eight catagories; 1% at $1,558,500, 4% at $277,200, 5% at $161,100, 10% at $120,700, 20% at $85,200, 20% at $58,500, 20% at $37,400 and 20% at $15,900.  A "middle income" is nominally defined as a midrange average between the lowest and hightest extremes.  While exact numbers are open to debate, the link's numbers suggest that at least 59% of the tax-payers fell into the middle income range of $37,401 and $277,199.  These tax-payers paid 66% of the total taxes collected.  The upper 1% paid 27% of the total taxes paid, therefore, the link does support my argument despite the fact that, because they made more than 99% of other tax-payers, they got taxed more, (as a graduated percentage), than lower income people. 

Let me ask you this; would you rather make $1 million and get taxed, say 33%, (or $330,000), and retain $670,000 or, make $30,000 and get taxed at 10%, ($3,000), and retain $27,000?

[Abrupt]

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.

That is bullshit.  You specifically said "middleclass" and that is an abstract, subjective, and ambiguous term.  Additionally it wasn't even indicated as an interpretation in anything you presented so do not accuse me of empty rhetoric after your entire argument was baseless and unsupported.

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?

I don't think I am giving you too much credit to assume you are aware that they do not represent everyone they claim to, but of course I cannot prove that, so if you wish to play the naive and gullible fool then please suit yourself as I think I know better.  I am sure I wouldn't know why the wealthier 1% would camp out in tents either, is their a particular reason why you even mentioned that as it seems a strange thing to ask?

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?

I keep my ear to the ground and pay close attention to the words and posturing of peoples.  There is quite a bit revealed sometimes by not just what people say but also what they don't say.  I am not sure that I could supply references that would satisfy you as they would be my interpretations of people and I cannot produce any certification of competence in such a skill.

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.

I do not like pork barrel projects anymore than you do so you are preaching to the choir in that regard.  I don't like crony capitalism either, regardless of who is president.  It is quite clear, though, which outpaces which if you simply look at the expenditure of the US budget.  Additionally, don't forget that the money of the corporations ultimately goes to people and those people do pay taxes on them in the long run.  Personally I would like some sort of flat tax so with no loopholes or exceptions and I think most people would as well.

 

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.

I didn't concede anything, I am the one who pointed the facts out so don't try to make it out like the reverse is true.  And I said these people paid a lower percentage, not less.  In fact they paid much more.  Also you mention they can write off their losses, but you failed to mention that it is to the amount of $1,500 which is a paltry amount of what they would have risked.

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.

 

Damned the Devil, we agree on this.

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).

It is their greed that we depend upon.  Their greed is what makes them invest and it is an animal we all can easily understand and bank on.  They will do with their money what they think is in their best interest and if they are sitting on it that gives you an understanding of how they view the economy or plethora of regulations and policies coming out of Washington.  It is actually uncertainty at the moment that is hindering the bulk of their reserved approach and even if bad things were coming out of Washington they would adapt and invest -- but as it is things are haphazard and one way then the other and that leaves them no room to predict.

[falcon9]

I am sure I wouldn't know why the wealthier 1% would camp out in tents either, is their a particular reason why you even mentioned that as it seems a strange thing to ask?

It was mentioned because of the inherent implication of your supposition that the OWS protesters are presenting an "illusion" of being anti-1%, (which tacitly suggests that there are 1%ers among them, in tents).  So, either it's not an illusion and they are representative of the 99% or, they have 1% moles secreted 'aboot tha lair'.

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?
[/quote]

I keep my ear to the ground and pay close attention to the words and posturing of peoples.  There is quite a bit revealed sometimes by not just what people say but also what they don't say.  I am not sure that I could supply references that would satisfy you as they would be my interpretations of people and I cannot produce any certification of competence in such a skill.

As you allude, such interpretations are extremely subjective and not readily verifiable.  Essentially, you're hazarding a guess and implicitly suggesting perception of aspects which are not necessarily perceived by others, (hmm ... that sounds familar ...).

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.

I do not like pork barrel projects anymore than you do so you are preaching to the choir in that regard.  I don't like crony capitalism either, regardless of who is president.  It is quite clear, though, which outpaces which if you simply look at the expenditure of the US budget. 

You are correct in that 'entitlements' outpace 'earmarks' by at least 10 to 1 however, the bulk of money paid out in such 'entitlements' cycles back into the general economy while the bulk of 'earmark' money, (sans labor costs), goes into corporate or private coffers.

Additionally, don't forget that the money of the corporations ultimately goes to people and those people do pay taxes on them in the long run.  Personally I would like some sort of flat tax so with no loopholes or exceptions and I think most people would as well.

I disagree.  Look at the last several earning quarters of the major oil companies; those multiple billions in profits aren't cycling back into the economy, they are being sucked out of it.

 

It is their greed that we depend upon.  Their greed is what makes them invest and it is an animal we all can easily understand and bank on.  They will do with their money what they think is in their best interest and if they are sitting on it that gives you an understanding of how they view the economy or plethora of regulations and policies coming out of Washington.  It is actually uncertainty at the moment that is hindering the bulk of their reserved approach and even if bad things were coming out of Washington they would adapt and invest -- but as it is things are haphazard and one way then the other and that leaves them no room to predict.

Of course, perhaps I should have characterized it as a 'greed-driven' economy.  Given that, there cannot be unchecked greed at the expense of all others else that economy will likely crash.  Regulations can barely keep such greed in check and even then, incompletely at best.  Conservatives abhor unpredictability while entrepeneurs thrive on it.  You spoke of gambling; when is it time for fearful tightwads to take a calculate risk?

[hawkeye3210]

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."

"The same percentage" does not equate to the same amount of taxes paid.  That link shows that the upper 1% income bracket pays 27% of the taxes collected while the remaining 99% pay 70% of the taxes collected.  Of the total taxes collected, the lower 99% of tax-payers pay 43% more
of the collected taxes than the upper 1% do.   Percentage of income is a misleading factor since 10% of $1 million is a much different number than 10% of $30,000, ($100,000 vs. $3,000 ... still 10% but, wide variance in bottonline dollar amounts).

It is even more evident that you do not have any idea what the chart is saying.  “Percentage of income” is not at all misleading if you actually understand what the chart is trying to say. By the percentage of income, the chart is referring to the how much income a given group makes in comparison to the total national income for that year.  So, 10% of national income is going to be the same number regardless of where it falls.  So, what the chart is actually saying is that the Top 1% make up 18% of total national income, but are paying 27% of total taxes collected.  Conversely, if you want to still group the 99% as a whole, the “99%” make 82% of the total national income and pay 73% of the income taxes collected. It should be pretty evident that people with higher incomes are paying higher tax rates. That is the purpose of the chart.

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%.

Since I didn't classify the remaining 99% of tax-payers as "middle" but, as 'middle and lower income tax-payers', there is no flawed logic involved.

Actually, you did.

There are more middle and lower income people, (the 99%), than there are higher income people, (the 1%). 

The link divides tax-payers into eight catagories; 1% at $1,558,500, 4% at $277,200, 5% at $161,100, 10% at $120,700, 20% at $85,200, 20% at $58,500, 20% at $37,400 and 20% at $15,900.  A "middle income" is nominally defined as a midrange average between the lowest and hightest extremes.  While exact numbers are open to debate, the link's numbers suggest that at least 59% of the tax-payers fell into the middle income range of $37,401 and $277,199.  These tax-payers paid 66% of the total taxes collected.  The upper 1% paid 27% of the total taxes paid, therefore, the link does support my argument despite the fact that, because they made more than 99% of other tax-payers, they got taxed more, (as a graduated percentage), than lower income people. 

If really you want to include someone who makes more than 98% of the population as being in the "middle" class, than that is up to you.  That is not what the chart is saying, but I digress.

Reading the paragraph above the chart can give you a good idea of what breakdowns they use.  Those being the the top 20% = Upper Class, the 21%-80% middle class, and the bottom 20% = Lower Class.  Which would be a pretty standard distribution.

So to compare.
The top 1% makes 18% of the total national income and pays 27% of the total income taxes.
The middle class (21%-80%) makes 41% of the total national income and pays 30% of the total income taxes.

[falcon9]

So, what the chart is actually saying is that the Top 1% make up 18% of total national income, but are paying 27% of total taxes collected.  Conversely, if you want to still group the 99% as a whole, the “99%” make 82% of the total national income and pay 73% of the income taxes collected. It should be pretty evident that people with higher incomes are paying higher tax rates. That is the purpose of the chart.

If one group of tax-payers, (those not among the 1% paying 27% of the total taxes collected), is paying 73% of the total taxes collected then that group is paying more taxes than the group paying 27% of them.  Surely you're not implicitly suggesting that 27% of the total is greater than 73% of the total paid?

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%.

Since I didn't classify the remaining 99% of tax-payers as "middle" but, as 'middle and lower income tax-payers', there is no flawed logic involved.

[/quote]

Actually, you did.

There are more middle and lower income people, (the 99%), than there are higher income people, (the 1%). 

Actually, the quote specifies "middle income", not 'middle class' as your false accusation of "flawed logic" asserted, ("Classifying anyone outside the 1% as middle or lower class is just flawed logic." - hawkeye3210).

The top 1% makes 18% of the total national income and pays 27% of the total income taxes.
The middle class (21%-80%) makes 41% of the total national income and pays 30% of the total income taxes.

Even using that distribution, the middle income earners are still paying 3% more in total taxes collected than the top 1%.  This does not even include lower income tax-payers who add to the total taxes collected.  Summarily, data supports my contention that everyone else pays more taxes than the upper 1%.

[hawkeye3210]

So, what the chart is actually saying is that the Top 1% make up 18% of total national income, but are paying 27% of total taxes collected.  Conversely, if you want to still group the 99% as a whole, the “99%” make 82% of the total national income and pay 73% of the income taxes collected. It should be pretty evident that people with higher incomes are paying higher tax rates. That is the purpose of the chart.

If one group of tax-payers, (those not among the 1% paying 27% of the total taxes collected), is paying 73% of the total taxes collected then that group is paying more taxes than the group paying 27% of them.  Surely you're not implicitly suggesting that 27% of the total is greater than 73% of the total paid?

No, I am saying that your whole argument that the 99% pays a greater percentage of their income in taxes to be factually inaccurate. Need I remind you.

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.

Now your just spinning in circles trying to cling on to any possible point you could make.

Even using that distribution, the middle income earners are still paying 3% more in total taxes collected than the top 1%.  This does not even include lower income tax-payers who add to the total taxes collected.  Summarily, data supports my contention that everyone else pays more taxes than the upper 1%.

Add the lower 20% and the less than 1% of the total taxes they pay if you want.   So,  the lower 80% makes up 27% more of the total national income than the top 1%, and pays only 3-4% more in the total taxes collected.  And your contention would be that this is unfair to those outside the 1%? 

[falcon9]

No, I am saying that your whole argument that the 99% pays a greater percentage of their income in taxes to be factually inaccurate. Need I remind you.

Yes, do remind me where I stated it was a greater "percentage of their income", (rather than a greater total amount of taxes paid).  Given your previous example of quoting what I didn't state, that would be as relavent.

Considering that the OWS participants 'appear' to consist of anyone _except_ the upper 1%, the bulk of OWS participants are far more likely to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes.

Now your just spinning in circles trying to cling on to any possible point you could make.

Now you're just being pendantic.  The point was and remains that the upper 1% pays less tax than the remaining 99%.  It isn't "any possible point"; it's the one raised with "Abrupt" and contended by both of you, (although you appear to be tenaciously avoiding that point by tossing out ad hominems).  Whether 3-4% more represents a signficant dollar amount collected in taxes hasn't been examined as an auxillary supportive point as yet.

Even using that distribution, the middle income earners are still paying 3% more in total taxes collected than the top 1%.  This does not even include lower income tax-payers who add to the total taxes collected.  Summarily, data supports my contention that everyone else pays more taxes than the upper 1%.

Add the lower 20% and the less than 1% of the total taxes they pay if you want.   So,  the lower 80% makes up 27% more of the total national income than the top 1%, and pays only 3-4% more in the total taxes collected.  And your contention would be that this is unfair to those outside the 1%? 

I contended no such thing regarding it being "unfair".  I contended that the bulk of tax-payers paid more in collected taxes than the 1%.  This contention was supported by the government's data.  If you are instead fishing for my opinion on the 'fairness' of the tax structure in this instance, you need but ask straight out.

[message_for_jen]

I'm all for abolish or at least audit the Federal Reserve, and a higher standard/better enforced regulatory system for Wall Street but I must say that I thoroughly enjoy all the ignoramouses participating in this Occupy movement who have no clue why they're even there except socialistic what's-yours-should-be-mine BS.

If you haven't, check out RON PAUL!!

[Abrupt]

I like Ron Paul, he is a liberals worst fear (they fear him even more than they fear the generic concept of freedom).

[mall0271]

I believe in the right to express yourself. Especially if you feel there is injustice. I don't get what they hope to accomplish. Wall Street is full of a bunch of blood suckers that the government is in bed with. I give them props for sticking it out and making their concerns known. 

[hammy12]

I am for occupy washington dc

[sigmapi1501]

If you are NOT a millionaire, (and why would you be on here making extra money if you were) and you have been tricked into thinking OWS is not fighting for you... You are mentally retarded.

If you vote for republican presidential candidates and you are not very wealthy, you are stupid.  No defense. Just stupid.
You idiots are the reason many people can't go to the doctor.  Your racism (anti-welfare), and fear of fags force you to vote in the best interest of a party that wishes to keep you poor and increase their wealth. 

No candidate is gonna take your shotgun or force you to watch gay butt sex.