Occupy Wall Street

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Buffett never announced his charitable deductions, but it is calculated to be about 23 billion - yes billion - dollars to Gates Foundation. Buffett has always said that when he and his wife die, the vast majority of their money will go to Gates Foundation (rather than leave a huge estate to the kids)..

Then why bring up his tax rate, not knowing what his deductions were? His tax rate is the max!

Seems to me the culprit you should be blaming is the write off allowed for charitable deductions. Make a sign and get to Wall Street. See how 'NO MORE CHARITABLE DEDUCTIONS' plays.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Riot

Small point ... that's not what they are saying, and we have a progressive, not regressive, tax system.

And: Warren Buffett released some of his income tax information today



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...875519978.html

I don't know how many times it has to be stated that Buffett pays 17.4 percent of his earned income to Uncle Sam and not 35 percent because he makes virtually all of his money off investments that aren't subject to the federal income tax. I realize Mr. Buffett is suggesting that people of his ilk should pay higher taxes, but I can't imagine he's suggesting that dividends and capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate. I can assure you that idea would hit many, many more people than just the top echelon of income earners.

In any event, Warren Buffett himself could just stroke a check for $30 billion or so and it would save the government just as much money as letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the current 35 percent tax bracket.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Riot

There has been a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency put in place by the Obama administration, over the screaming objections of the Republicans, who blocked the appointment of Elizabeth Warren as it's head months ago, and are currently actively blocking the appointment of the second choice. Rendering the agency virtually non-existent for almost a year.

So some in Washington are desperately trying to "address" exactly what you don't like and are complaining about - but the special interest lobbies in Washington are blocking it completely through the Republican party.

Hence, Occupy Wall Street exists: to take back Washington and our government from the large corporations and special interests owning our government process and manipulating it to their, not our, end. Haven't you had enough of that?

Call Mitch McConnell and tell him to stop blocking the implementation of the CFPA and the appointment of it's head. That is what Occupy Wall Street wants to happen. Get corporate ownership out of our government.

Occupy Wall Street has nothing to do with how much CEO's make. It has everything to do with investment banks crashing our economy, getting bailed out by us, never being investigated for their malfesence, then we stay in the recession while they go on to record profits and bonuses, because Washington is owned by those corporations, and they won't let Washington make any laws that will benefit us, and threaten their profit margin.

Just curious, but if this whole "movement" has nothing to do with CEO income, why did a bunch of protesters meander over to the personal residences of several CEO's the other day? For exercise I guess?

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by jms62

So you think that special intrests don't run Washington? Tell me why?

Banking industry Lobbyists and Pharmaceutical Industry Lobbyists? Repeal of Glass Stegal Act was that good for the country? No lobbyists involved there, LOL. Allowing Hedge Funds to invest in the Futures markets... Yeah that helped things and I am sure no lobbyists involved there... And your retort will be to ask for the Bill number and sponser may I say please stop in advance. You could be betting horses today instead of wasting your time.

You're a little late to the game, man. Glass-Steagal was repealed in the 90's. Does Occupy Wall Street have a Way Back Machine?

Nothing else to add aside from I'm relatively certain the two industries you cited have been as unsuccessful as any at influence over the last three or four years. If banking industry lobbyists ran the world, I'd guarantee you Dodd-Frank wouldn't be on the books. Likewise, the pharmaceutical industry and health reform.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Buffett is fully supportive of the OWS movement. Buffett released this information in an attempt to garner congressional support for increasing the tax revenue from the rich by decreasing the loopholes, etc. that allow the more wealthy to pay a far lesser rate than the less wealthy.

Uh doesnt this snippet from one of your posts show this to be at least partially untrue?

That made for an effective tax rate of 17.4%(Buffett).

According to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group, the average tax rate for taxpayers in the middle quintile—those earning between $34,000 and $60,000 a year—is 12%, including payroll and income taxes. Those earning from $103,000 to $163,000--the top 80% to 90% of earners—pay 18.2%. Those earning from $163,000 to $211,000 pay 19.8%, and those earning from $211,000 to $533,000 pay 20.4%.

Unless "far lesser" has a different meaning to some

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

There has been a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency put in place by the Obama administration, over the screaming objections of the Republicans, who blocked the appointment of Elizabeth Warren as it's head months ago, and are currently actively blocking the appointment of the second choice. Rendering the agency virtually non-existent for almost a year.

So some in Washington are desperately trying to "address" exactly what you don't like and are complaining about - but the special interest lobbies in Washington are blocking it completely through the Republican party.

Hence, Occupy Wall Street exists: to take back Washington and our government from the large corporations and special interests owning our government process and manipulating it to their, not our, end. Haven't you had enough of that?

Call Mitch McConnell and tell him to stop blocking the implementation of the CFPA and the appointment of it's head. That is what Occupy Wall Street wants to happen. Get corporate ownership out of our government.

Occupy Wall Street has nothing to do with how much CEO's make. It has everything to do with investment banks crashing our economy, getting bailed out by us, never being investigated for their malfesence, then we stay in the recession while they go on to record profits and bonuses, because Washington is owned by those corporations, and they won't let Washington make any laws that will benefit us, and threaten their profit margin.

Warren isnt fit to be the head of anything in the real world (no Harvard isnt real world) which makes her a fine candidate for Congress. But if Congress hadn't passed the supposed consumer protection credit card reform bill we wouldnt be facing many of these new fees which were created in response to that new law.

Despite how much hand wringing or protesting goes on the reality is money buys power and there is nothing that can be done to change that. And if I recall correctly you were against term limits for Congress which would seem to be a good place to start the reform that you speak of.

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Then why bring up his tax rate, not knowing what his deductions were? His tax rate is the max!

Why don't you read the article, so you have a clue before you comment? Rather than just babbling on about things asked and answered.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I realize Mr. Buffett is suggesting that people of his ilk should pay higher taxes, but I can't imagine he's suggesting that dividends and capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate.

Why don't you read what Warren Buffett himself has said about that very thing, you know, in the article, about it? Then you won't have to imagine and speculate.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Uh doesnt this snippet from one of your posts show this to be at least partially untrue?

That made for an effective tax rate of 17.4%(Buffett).

According to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group, the average tax rate for taxpayers in the middle quintile—those earning between $34,000 and $60,000 a year—is 12%, including payroll and income taxes. Those earning from $103,000 to $163,000--the top 80% to 90% of earners—pay 18.2%. Those earning from $163,000 to $211,000 pay 19.8%, and those earning from $211,000 to $533,000 pay 20.4%.

Unless "far lesser" has a different meaning to some

The tax rate for Buffett's income level is 35%. Buffett payed 17.4%. Looks like "far less" to me. Looks like "far less" to Buffett, too. That's his deal. Not mine. I just posted that he did a rare thing, in pursuit of the change he wants. You might read what he has to say, and why he is lobbying for a tax rate change, if you want to comment on it.

You guys (you, Slot, Dell) are hilarious: you all have negative comments about something you've heard a little about, you base your arguments on partial information you read here, and you absolutely refuse to be fully informed about what you're bitchin' about, because it's so much easier to argue your imaginary "what ifs" than what someone like Buffett or the OWS crowd has really said on the record.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Warren isnt fit to be the head of anything in the real world (no Harvard isnt real world) which makes her a fine candidate for Congress. But if Congress hadn't passed the supposed consumer protection credit card reform bill we wouldnt be facing many of these new fees which were created in response to that new law.

Warren is such a threat to "the real world" that the Republican party fell all over themselves attempt to block everything associated with the agencies creation, then her appointment to run it.

Naw, if it were not for Congress, you'd still be facing sudden unannounced 20%+ interest rate hikes with bills arriving 4 days before you due date, and interest accumulating from date of purchase, compounding of interest onto current purchases, etc.

I am repeatedly amazed at your factual ignorance regarding things you discuss here. I can only assume it's deliberate.

You might take a while to think and reflect upon the credit card reform passed, and then what those sudden "new fees" would be if the Republicans would allow the Consumer Financial Protection Agency to ... you know, do something about that gouging attempting to get outside the law, as the agency is intended to.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Just curious, but if this whole "movement" has nothing to do with CEO income, why did a bunch of protesters meander over to the personal residences of several CEO's the other day? For exercise I guess?

I guess if you really wanted to know, you'd watch the news. No, that had nothing to do with CEO income, it had to do with an expiring NY tax rate. But it appears you think it more convenient to not know the facts, and just attribute whatever purpose you make up in your mind.

Ignorance is bliss. Damn effing dirty hippies, right? LOL.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

You're a little late to the game, man. Glass-Steagal was repealed in the 90's. Does Occupy Wall Street have a Way Back Machine?

Nothing else to add aside from I'm relatively certain the two industries you cited have been as unsuccessful as any at influence over the last three or four years. If banking industry lobbyists ran the world, I'd guarantee you Dodd-Frank wouldn't be on the books. Likewise, the pharmaceutical industry and health reform.

Dude you asked I gave and now you are complaining that Glass Stegal is old? It came into being during the Great Depression. Repealed and 10 years later we have the biggest economic crises since the depression. And your blanket statement about the success of Banking and Pharma lobbying after accusing someone of making blanket statement is pretty funny. This whole argument is pointless with you. Simple queston. Do you really believe the pablum you spew or just love a good argument?

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Riot

The tax rate for Buffett's income level is 35%. Buffett payed 17.4%. Looks like "far less" to me. Looks like "far less" to Buffett, too. That's his deal. Not mine. I just posted that he did a rare thing, in pursuit of the change he wants. You might read what he has to say, and why he is lobbying for a tax rate change, if you want to comment on it.

You guys (you, Slot, Dell) are hilarious: you all have negative comments about something you've heard a little about, you base your arguments on partial information you read here, and you absolutely refuse to be fully informed about what you're bitchin' about, because it's so much easier to argue your imaginary "what ifs" than what someone like Buffett or the OWS crowd has really said on the record.

Honest question: do you understand the difference between income earned by salary or wages (subject to the federal income tax) and income earned off investments (subject to capital gains taxes)? Further, do you understand that capital gains taxes are significantly lower than income taxes in order to encourage capital investment? Lastly, the only ways to make Warren Buffett pay more than 17.4 percent in taxes is to give him a larger salary (his is $100k and has been for 30 years), eliminate deductions, or to tax capital gains at a significantly higher rate. Pick your poison.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by jms62

Dude you asked I gave and now you are complaining that Glass Stegal is old? It came into being during the Great Depression. Repealed and 10 years later we have the biggest economic crises since the depression. And your blanket statement about the success of Banking and Pharma lobbying after accusing someone of making blanket statement is pretty funny. This whole argument is pointless with you. Simple queston. Do you really believe the pablum you spew or just love a good argument?

I just want to know why you weren't marching on Congress when they were looking to repeal most of Glass-Steagal back in the late 90's. Surely, you were as interested in these issues then as you are now, right?

And I don't mean to be trite, but anybody who tries to get the last word with constant insults is someone whose argument is already lost.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I just want to know why you weren't marching on Congress when they were looking to repeal most of Glass-Steagal back in the late 90's. Surely, you were as interested in these issues then as you are now, right?

And I don't mean to be trite, but anybody who tries to get the last word with constant insults is someone whose argument is already lost.

Sharp comeback and if you dont mean to be trite then dont be it is a very simple concept.

Originally Posted by slotdirt

And I don't mean to be trite, but anybody who tries to get the last word with constant insults is someone whose argument is already lost.

That's a pushover mentality and a fine example of how these corrupt scumbags have conditioned us to lay down and be little b.itches and accept this nonsense. Control your emotions. Be fake. Accept things as the way they are.

BS. People need to be told to f.uck off more often.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Honest question: do you understand the difference between income earned by salary or wages (subject to the federal income tax) and income earned off investments (subject to capital gains taxes)? Further, do you understand that capital gains taxes are significantly lower than income taxes in order to encourage capital investment? Lastly, the only ways to make Warren Buffett pay more than 17.4 percent in taxes is to give him a larger salary (his is $100k and has been for 30 years), eliminate deductions, or to tax capital gains at a significantly higher rate. Pick your poison.

Which would make sense if that's how it worked in the real world, but it's not. Because most stocks aren't initial public offerings, where the money goes to the company, theoretically to be used to expand; in fact, they're traded on the secondary market between private individuals and organizations that have no interest in their sliver of ownership of the company besides whether they can make a financial profit on eventually selling the stock. It's the difference between financial investment and economic investment. Most trading is a financial investment, which doesn't do the economy any good, unless the Warren Buffets of the world are taking their profits to build things. Which they aren't; they're buying more secondary market stocks and pocketing the profits.

So taxing capital gains as income isn't poison at all. It's far more fair than the current system. If the gov't wants to make an exception for IPOs, and tax them at a lower rate to encourage the company to further expand , fine, but once the stock has changed hands, it's not encouraging anything other than more profit-making with no intent to put that money back into the economy.

[slotdirt]

All well and good, but just understand that raising capital gains taxes is going to effect pretty much anybody who invests in stocks or mutual funds and not just Warren Buffett. Agreed?

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

That's a pushover mentality and a fine example of how these corrupt scumbags have conditioned us to lay down and be little b.itches and accept this nonsense. Control your emotions. Be fake. Accept things as the way they are.

BS. People need to be told to f.uck off more often.

Fucl< off more often.

Originally Posted by clyde

Fucl< off more often.

!!OOOOOOOOOO!!