Nationswide protests-will they spread?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AN] I might not be in that 1%, but I want to be them, not take money away from them. [/quote]

It’s interesting that those who want be rich don’t support the Buffett Rule. But Warren Buffett himself supports the Buffett Rule. Who’s the better judge of fairness and equity here?[/quote]

The explanation is quite easy, Brian.
Most people that are in that 1% category are not anywhere nearly close to the billionaire status of people with an ungodly amount of money..

[scaredyclassic]

I recently closed an acct at chase and wells Fargo. The chase mgr came to talk. I vented some complaints and she was entirely sympathetic and said line mgt has been passing along complaints.

I also said I felt that the above market mtg rate in the window was like a big sign that said thank you moron for banking here.

I’m sticking with ingdirect

[an]

[quote=briansd1]It’s interesting that those who want be rich don’t support the Buffett Rule. But Warren Buffett himself supports the Buffett Rule. Who’s the better judge of fairness and equity here?[/quote]
No one is stopping them from giving their money to the government. Why does Buffet give his money to charity instead to the IRS? Why are they not leading my example to send checks to the IRS? They are also welcome to pay for all of their employee’s income tax too if they want. Everyone is equal judge of fairness and equity. Just because you make more money doesn’t mean your definition of fairness and equity is more valid.

[davelj]

[quote=jstoesz]

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” You can spin a web based on selective stats, but let us deal with the real question here. There is no debating that there is a difference in the rich and poor, that much is obvious.

Why/how is it that ALL rich people have gotten all their money off the backs of the 99? Did all rich people get that way through ill gotten gains?

Furthermore, even if you can show that some rich people have screwed over the lower classes, how do you then justify government confiscation and redistribution as a moral solution? Do you not think that many rich people have provided an incredible service to their employees and deserve the money they have made, by providing gainful and productive employment for many? By what grounds do you justify confiscating money from those with proper earned gains? Because they simply have more money then you? That is hardly a moral justification. [/quote]

On the one hand I sympathize with your arguments as they are superficially compelling. But there are two big problems with your general position.

First – and we can thank Nassim Taleb for his analysis here – you assume that most wealthy people earned their wealth purely as a result of hard work, and that – conversely – most poor people ended up in their position because they were unwilling to work hard. That is, luck – or “randomness” – did not play a major role in either. This is demonstrably false. In fact, a huge part of anyone’s success (or lack thereof) can be attributed to randomness. Now, I will agree with Reagan’s observation that “the harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but luck plays a big role in anyone’s outcome. If you were to pick a group of highly successful people and write down all of the things they did to become successful, you’d be able to find a much larger group of people who did all of those same things and did NOT reach the same level of success. Again, Nassim Taleb has done the world a favor by debunking the notion that many successful people hold that they “achieved it all by working hard and taking risks.” Sure, working hard and risk-taking are critical components of success… but the economic backyard is FILLED with folks who are smart, hardworking and took risks… who are wholly unsuccessful. The difference between these two groups is – to a meaningful (although not entire, of course) extent – the result of luck.

[A thought experiment. There are 6.5 billion people on the planet. The vast majority of them were born into abject poverty. Half of the world’s population lives on less than $3/day and other than survival these folks have very few prospects in their lives. Now, look around yourself and tell me how much your “hard work” has played into your ultimate success relative to everyone else on this planet. Answer: not much. You were born into a situation in which “success” – as we define it – was achievable. Most people on the planet do not have that luxury.]

Second – What good is a world that is “morally fair” (to paraphrase your words) if that world is too dangerous to live in? That is, you don’t want to redistribute to the poor because “they don’t deserve it.” OK, fine. Let’s not quibble over morality and what folks deserve. Would you support redistribution if not doing so would result in a world in which your person is in great physical danger (because the folks that are “poor” decide to take from the rich by “pure” force). Personally, I’d rather redistribute if it keeps the masses at bay, regardless of any “moral” notions about “fairness.”

So, again, I sympathize with your (essentially) libertarian ideas here. I held similar views once myself. But I don’t think they hold up to close scrutiny or the practical realities of living in a large society with disparate economic outcomes.

[Anonymous]

[quote=jstoesz]If you steal from the rich to give to the poor, you are still a thief (even if you are blanketed in the authority of the government).[/quote]

So now the government is no longer the body that defines “theft?”

The government is not the authority that determines what is lawful and unlawful?

Then who is?

Tell me how government can steal. Tell me what distinguishes a dollar that is “stolen” by the government from one that is not.

[quote]Furthermore, even if you can show that some rich people have screwed over the lower classes, how do you then justify government confiscation and redistribution as a moral solution?[/quote]

I think you just answered your own question there.

But why the word “confiscation?” Once again, tell me the difference between a dollar that as collected through taxes vs. “confiscation.”

What percentage of the checks I send to the IRS is “confiscated?”

[davelj]

[quote=AN]
Nicely put. I totally agree. I might not be in that 1%, but I want to be them, not take money away from them. Of course, if they got their money through illegal means, then yes, they should be punished. But guys like Zuckerberg/Page/Brin/etc who recent got their wealth did not do it by stealing from the 99%.[/quote]

Yes, but without the government structure (and enforcement) of laws, property rights, etc. – not to mention an educated workforce and population – how would these folks have been able to start a business in the first place to get into the top 1%? Without the government allowing a corporate entity to exist – with its limited liability for owners/shareholders – these folks would all have bupkus… because no one would take the large-scale risks necessary to do the things they’ve done if they faced personal liability for failure. The “corporate veil” is one of the single most valuable tools of the rich. Which I don’t have a problem with, by the way. But… those that benefit from it should pay DEARLY for its use… because without it most of them would not be in the position they’re in. They would never PERSONALLY undertake the risks that the corporate veil allows them to undertake. And without being able to take those risks… again… bupkus.

[jstoesz]

[quote=davelj][quote=jstoesz]

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” You can spin a web based on selective stats, but let us deal with the real question here. There is no debating that there is a difference in the rich and poor, that much is obvious.

Why/how is it that ALL rich people have gotten all their money off the backs of the 99? Did all rich people get that way through ill gotten gains?

Furthermore, even if you can show that some rich people have screwed over the lower classes, how do you then justify government confiscation and redistribution as a moral solution? Do you not think that many rich people have provided an incredible service to their employees and deserve the money they have made, by providing gainful and productive employment for many? By what grounds do you justify confiscating money from those with proper earned gains? Because they simply have more money then you? That is hardly a moral justification. [/quote]

On the one hand I sympathize with your arguments as they are superficially compelling. But there are two big problems with your general position.

First – and we can thank Nassim Taleb for his analysis here – you assume that most wealthy people earned their wealth purely as a result of hard work, and that – conversely – most poor people ended up in their position because they were unwilling to work hard. That is, luck – or “randomness” – did not play a major role in either. This is demonstrably false. In fact, a huge part of anyone’s success (or lack thereof) can be attributed to randomness. Now, I will agree with Reagan’s observation that “the harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but luck plays a big role in anyone’s outcome. If you were to pick a group of highly successful people and write down all of the things they did to become successful, you’d be able to find a much larger group of people who did all of those same things and did NOT reach the same level of success. Again, Nassim Taleb has done the world a favor by debunking the notion that many successful people hold that they “achieved it all by working hard and taking risks.” Sure, working hard and risk-taking are critical components of success… but the economic backyard is FILLED with folks who are smart, hardworking and took risks… who are wholly unsuccessful. The difference between these two groups is – to a meaningful (although not entire, of course) extent – the result of luck.

[A thought experiment. There are 6.5 billion people on the planet. The vast majority of them were born into abject poverty. Half of the world’s population lives on less than $3/day and other than survival these folks have very few prospects in their lives. Now, look around yourself and tell me how much your “hard work” has played into your ultimate success relative to everyone else on this planet. Answer: not much. You were born into a situation in which “success” – as we define it – was achievable. Most people on the planet do not have that luxury.]

Second – What good is a world that is “morally fair” (to paraphrase your words) if that world is too dangerous to live in? That is, you don’t want to redistribute to the poor because “they don’t deserve it.” OK, fine. Let’s not quibble over morality and what folks deserve. Would you support redistribution if not doing so would result in a world in which your person is in great physical danger (because the folks that are “poor” decide to take from the rich by “pure” force). Personally, I’d rather redistribute if it keeps the masses at bay, regardless of any “moral” notions about “fairness.”

So, again, I sympathize with your (essentially) libertarian ideas here. I held similar views once myself. But I don’t think they hold up to close scrutiny or the practical realities of living in a large society with disparate economic outcomes.[/quote]

I too understand what you are saying dave. And I agree to a large extent. The world is not fair, and lady luck doesn’t shine on us all. But your quote does get to the heart of it. The more work, enginuity, risk allowance, and intelligence the greater your chances. But you are ultimately lucky to be born here to non psycho parents. Somethings are just structural. The problem is, many of the solutions to the unfairness result in greater moral hazard. The unintended consequences can be quite severe, and deleterious.

Imagine if you are born to abusive parents, is that any excuse to be abusive yourself? Certainly not. The same goes for finacially iresponsible parents, you are not excused from making poor choices like your parents. You did get the short end of the stick though.

By our bailouts for our banks created a more sound and transparent financial sector? Did they learn their lesson? Similarly, if the government instituted forced cram downs for mortgage debt on the banks, are people more or less likely to over mortgage themselves if the wind blows that way again? Or imagine forced cram downs for student loans, how many basket weaving sociology (just joking) majors would we have?

One more comment. I am not saying we should live in an extreme and cruel libertarian society. That will not foster succesful outcomes. We need mamma (nurturing) and pappa (responsibility) politics. I just think the pendulum has swung way to far to the mamma side over the last 15 years. We need to build our responsibity and accountability for once in this country (no fun). If more American took ownership and control of their lives, we would all be better off.

:climbing off my soap box:

[an]

[quote=davelj][quote=AN]
Nicely put. I totally agree. I might not be in that 1%, but I want to be them, not take money away from them. Of course, if they got their money through illegal means, then yes, they should be punished. But guys like Zuckerberg/Page/Brin/etc who recent got their wealth did not do it by stealing from the 99%.[/quote]

Yes, but without the government structure (and enforcement) of laws, property rights, etc. – not to mention an educated workforce and population – how would these folks have been able to start a business in the first place to get into the top 1%? Without the government allowing a corporate entity to exist – with its limited liability for owners/shareholders – these folks would all have bupkus… because no one would take the large-scale risks necessary to do the things they’ve done if they faced personal liability for failure. The “corporate veil” is one of the single most valuable tools of the rich. Which I don’t have a problem with, by the way. But… those that benefit from it should pay DEARLY for its use… because without it most of them would not be in the position they’re in. They would never PERSONALLY undertake the risks that the corporate veil allows them to undertake. And without being able to take those risks… again… bupkus.[/quote]
I never said there should be no government structure/enforcement of laws, etc. We need all of that and we ALL need to pay. I personally think they pay more than their fair share. If those who are up there don’t think so, they can send the IRS more. I think there are MANY who are NOT paying their fair share and they’re not in the 1%.

[jstoesz]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=jstoesz]If you steal from the rich to give to the poor, you are still a thief (even if you are blanketed in the authority of the government).[/quote]

So now the government is no longer the body that defines “theft?”

The government is not the authority that determines what is lawful and unlawful?

Then who is?

Tell me how government can steal. Tell me what distinguishes a dollar that is “stolen” by the government from one that is not.

[quote]Furthermore, even if you can show that some rich people have screwed over the lower classes, how do you then justify government confiscation and redistribution as a moral solution?[/quote]

I think you just answered your own question there.

But why the word “confiscation?” Once again, tell me the difference between a dollar that as collected through taxes vs. “confiscation.”

What percentage of the checks I send to the IRS is “confiscated?”[/quote]

You ask good questions, and I guess I would like to hear your thoughts on their answers. When is a tax rate too high?

You are asking something much bigger than tax rates. You are asking questions about what is right and wrong.

As I see it there are two prevailing schools of thought on right and wrong. One is based on humanistic, pragmatic terms. “What is best for society at this time” terms.

The other school of thought is that right and wrong are fixed with no regard for convenience or pragmatism. I have a feeling our founders were alluding to this when they said man was born with unalienable rights.

I suspect we subscribe to two different schools. From that point on, one of us will have to presume the other school of thought is correct.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]But when did modern day conveniences (when there are plenty of 0 cost alternatives ) become a right and not a privilege?[/quote]

Societies evolve. The concept of human dignity and human rights evolves.

One example. Air-conditioning, for a long time, was not available in public schools. We now expect it and have to fund it.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]I never said there should be no government structure/enforcement of laws, etc. We need all of that and we ALL need to pay. I personally think they pay more than their fair share. If those who are up there don’t think so, they can send the IRS more. I think there are MANY who are NOT paying their fair share and they’re not in the 1%.[/quote]

You keep referring to a notion of “fairness” as if it were some threshold: some pay more than what is fair, some pay less.

How do we determine what is a fair share? Many seem to be pretty sure exactly what the value is, but can’t even begin to provide a justification.

The answer requires more than just a number. You have to show your work.

[Anonymous]

It is a sad irony that so many people invoke the Founding Fathers when discussing tax policy but then fail to understand that THE reason the Constitution was created was to create a federal government with the power to TAX.

(The Bill of Rights was a late addition and NOT the motivation behind drafting the Constitution – that’s why they are amendments.)

So these folks must believe the Constitution was created to give government the power to confiscate.

Right?

Why are some folks suddenly using this word?

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz][quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz][quote=CA renter][quote=flu]And as I said, how is this NOT class warfare?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/oct/13/occupy-movement-coming-encinitas/

An Encinitas version, called Occupy North County, is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. Saturday at Encinitas Boulevard and Coast Highway 101. For more information on that event, go to Facebook.com and search for Occupy North County.

The overall movement’s slogan is “We are the 99,” as a reference to the discrepancy of wealth between the top 1 percent of wage earners in the country compared to the rest. The demonstrators are demanding financial reform that deals with rising student loan debt, high unemployment, and tax rates.

…Pssss. Careful sdrealtor…They are coming to get you…..Better not break out the bubblies and sip them fine bottles of wine on the rooftop while you watch the protesters…Otherwise they might paint you as a target….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PiXDTK_CBY%5B/quote%5D

I have a better question. How is THIS not considered class warfare?

“Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the ’80s, ’90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html%5B/quote%5D

You just quoted a SOCIOLOGY professor from UCSC.[/quote]

And…?

There are all kinds of sources out there that show these same trends. What exactly are you trying to insiunate? That the middle and working classes have done as well as the top 1-5% in the past ~30 years? Show me a single piece of evidence that proves that assertion (if that’s what you’re trying to assert).[/quote]

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” You can spin a web based on selective stats, but let us deal with the real question here. There is no debating that there is a difference in the rich and poor, that much is obvious.

Why/how is it that ALL rich people have gotten all their money off the backs of the 99? Did all rich people get that way through ill gotten gains?

Furthermore, even if you can show that some rich people have screwed over the lower classes, how do you then justify government confiscation and redistribution as a moral solution? Do you not think that many rich people have provided an incredible service to their employees and deserve the money they have made, by providing gainful and productive employment for many? By what grounds do you justify confiscating money from those with proper earned gains? Because they simply have more money then you? That is hardly a moral justification.

If you steal from the rich to give to the poor, you are still a thief (even if you are blanketed in the authority of the government). Just because inequality exists does not logically lead to class warfare by the rich on the poor.[/quote]

Many of the richest people have NOT provided jobs for the masses, but have made it easier and cheaper to decimate our job base and reduce us all to “big box” greeters and cashiers.

One can make the argument that all profit is made on the backs of those who created the goods or performed the services that are being sold. One can easily make the argument that large profit margins exist at the expense of the workers (who are not paid the full value of their labor) and the customers (who pay too much for the goods/services). And that’s just addressing the wealth that goes to those who arguably “create” jobs.

There is also a tremendous amount of our national wealth being directed to those who gamble on asset price movements. They aren’t producing anything. Why is the financial industry taking so much from the productive part of the economy? Do you not see a problem with that?

—————
“Financial companies accounted for 29.3 percent of U.S. corporate profits over the 12 months ended Mar. 31, well off the record high of 41.7 percent set in the 12 months ended Sept. 30, 2002.”

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_25/b4233045451894.htm

—————-

A good article about how we got here and why:

“But there’s a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.

Top investment bankers and government officials like to lay the blame for the current crisis on the lowering of U.S. interest rates after the dotcom bust or, even better—in a “buck stops somewhere else” sort of way—on the flow of savings out of China. Some on the right like to complain about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or even about longer-standing efforts to promote broader homeownership. And, of course, it is axiomatic to everyone that the regulators responsible for “safety and soundness” were fast asleep at the wheel.

But these various policies—lightweight regulation, cheap money, the unwritten Chinese-American economic alliance, the promotion of homeownership—had something in common. Even though some are traditionally associated with Democrats and some with Republicans, they all benefited the financial sector. Policy changes that might have forestalled the crisis but would have limited the financial sector’s profits—such as Brooksley Born’s now-famous attempts to regulate credit-default swaps at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in 1998—were ignored or swept aside.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/

[jstoesz]

Wow…pugnacious devil aren’t you!

When I made the allusion to the founders, I was not trying to imply that the founders would disagree or find our current rates confiscatory. I was stating that they based our government on certain concepts of morality.

If you disagree with them, that is fine. I should have left that statement off as it is getting us going in a worthless direction.

I was merely trying to get to the presuppositions of the argument. If we cannot agree on a concept of right and wrong, we are not going to agree on a concept of fairness in tax policy.

To put it another way, if I assume that morality is based in humanistic, pragmatic terms (which I am assuming you do, and lots of people do. I am not criticizing your morality), then I am left believing that no tax rate is unjust as long as it fulfills some utilitarian metric or some other pragmatic accounting system. So I would have to agree with you.

But I do disagree, because I reject humanism…but that is for another day. Have a good weekend everyone. Maybe on Monday I could make the argument from a humanistic perspective. Good fun.

[an]

[quote=pri_dk]You keep referring to a notion of “fairness” as if it were some threshold: some pay more than what is fair, some pay less.

How do we determine what is a fair share? Many seem to be pretty sure exactly what the value is, but can’t even begin to provide a justification.

The answer requires more than just a number. You have to show your work.[/quote]
Is it just me that keep referring to a notion of “fairness” or is this who protest about it not being fair? Why don’t you show your work? Mine is simple, we all pay a fixed % of what we make (no deduction, no nothing). You make more, you pay more, you make less you pay less. You might not agree with my definition of fairness but it is what it is.

[Author]

Posts