The "Occupy" Rallies

#351
#351
VOLatile said:
Norway seems to be getting along quite well with providing healthcare and education, among other things, for its citizens. Canada looks to be pretty immune to the global economic situation, even though it provides healthcare for its citizens.
Click to expand...

What are you suggesting. Those that want the government to handle those things should move?
 
#352
#352
gadsdenflag800px.jpg


demy.jpg


Do I really need to say who is who??




















































































WallStreet_Protest_BigPotty.jpg
 
#354
#354
VOLatile said:
Norway seems to be getting along quite well with providing healthcare and education, among other things, for its citizens. Canada looks to be pretty immune to the global economic situation, even though it provides healthcare for its citizens.
Click to expand...

Norway is bloody rich from oil. Norway has 5 million people.

Canada likewise has vast natural resources value relative to the number of citizens.
 
#356
#356
volinbham said:
Norway is bloody rich from oil. Norway has 5 million people.

Canada likewise has vast natural resources value relative to the number of citizens.
Click to expand...

It's a bit like arguing that Saudi policy is sound because the govt is rolling in cash.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#358
#358
Brewerw said:
MG and BP, I really don't mean disrespect and I don't mean to come on here and be a blowhard either. I just see people in need, and see the government as the only thing large enough to help as many people that need it. People's abuse of the system in my mind doesn't justify abolishing it at the cost of the people who need it most. Charities are great, and I'm part of many of them. Hell, I'm an Eagle Scout...

And maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see charities ever being capable of taking care of everyone.

Though, I guess we're at a sort of impasse.

Anyways, much to your joy probably, I now have to go read about 300 pages of Atlas Shrugged for an exam tomorrow. Wish me luck.
Click to expand...

When John Galt and his kind revolt, where will the gov't get it's resources to feed the needy?
 
#359
#359
lawgator1 said:
I shall go find some charts if I can, but have seen a number showing the top 5 percent in last two decades has seen substantial growth in real terms income whereas the rest of us gave been stagnant, at best.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png


change-since-1979-600.gif


inequality.jpg


1_percent_share_of_pre_tax_income.jpg


taxes_for_weealthy_fallen_dramatically.jpg


income_gains.jpg
 
#361
#361
volinbham said:
Norway is bloody rich from oil. Norway has 5 million people.

Canada likewise has vast natural resources value relative to the number of citizens.
Click to expand...

In Norway alcholics get free booze!!

In Canada as in Norway, their government doesn't
prevent them from developing natural resourses
as we do here in America!

adbusters_blog_occupywallst.jpg


Brought on by George Soros!

#OCCUPYWALLSTREET | Adbusters Culturejammer Headquarters

"The antiglobalization movement was the first step
on the road. Back then our model was to attack the
system like a pack of wolves. There was an alpha
male, a wolf who led the pack, and those who
followed behind. Now the model has evolved.
Today we are one big swarm of people."

— Raimundo Viejo, Pompeu Fabra University\
Barcelona, Spain
Click to expand...

10291
 
#364
#364
GAVol said:
The whole premise of that argument is flawed though. You know as well as I do that the money generating the dividends didn't just grow on a tree. It was either earned income - that has already been taxed - or it was an inheritance - that has already been taxed.
Click to expand...
LG, I'd still like to hear your response to this. Why should dividend income that has already been taxed once on the way in be taxed again at an even higher rate than it is now?
 
#367
#367
I have asked that direct question in a couple of different threads, it's kind of telling that he will not respond.
The answer is part of the deception of the administration. They know that the dems that realize this will just ignor the facts and the majority of democratic voters are not smart enough to realize the sheep call.
 
#368
#368
BigPapaVol said:
That's another big pile of useless relative wealth crap.

Now, explain to me why real incomes should be increasing, given demographics and global worker pool.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


You asked, he delivered.

That you don't like it, that it is proof of the fact that the middle class is being squeezed and is fed up, is no reason to simply call it "crap."

Its true. And it is what is behind these rallies.
 
#369
#369
GAVol said:
LG, I'd still like to hear your response to this. Why should dividend income that has already been taxed once on the way in be taxed again at an even higher rate than it is now?
Click to expand...


The problem with the argument is that it assumes that there is some reason not to tax the same income stream at multiple points because its dividend income. That makes no sense.

The reality is that our system will tax the same incoming dollar multiple times, regardless of the form. If you don't want that to be the case, universally, then fine. But why should someone being paid a dividend not have that taxed as ordinary income when a small business owner might pay taxes on the same dollar coming in to his business and then again when distributed to him as income?

There is nothing magical, or sacrosanct, about that dollar of income just because it was paid to you as a dividend.
 
#370
#370
I posted the figures because I think the protestors are barking up the right tree, but I don't particulary care for their solution or their reasons. I think stagnant wages in the middle and lower classes does affect this economy, and as the problems worsens, so will the effects. We've had policies that have propped up the housing industry to hide this through encouraging subprime lending, but when the growth never came, it eventually collapsed. The top 1% incomes have also increased pretty ridiculously. Where I get away from the protestors is their thinking that the government (who they also believe is in cahoots with big business) taxing more will fix the problem. It will not, it will only slow growth and compound the problem.

I think one of the causes is that corporations over the last couple of decades with an increase in technology, have been able to efficiently outsource manufacturing while still being able to maintain productivity and quality. The loss of manufacturing jobs has created more competition in the jobs typically filled by lower middle class to lower class workers. This has created less leverage for the workers resulting in stagnant wages. I think we should reevaluate our free trade policies because I think our manufacturing base is important. There's always going to be a certain percentage of our society not capable of high tech jobs, and we need that base to supply work for that portion. I don't think a service economy is sustainable or stable.

Also I think innovation has been down the last decade, which is also hurt by globalization and loss of intellectual property.

Also, I think wages should have grown because our GDP has grown, I don't see what's unnatural with that line of thought.

MaleMedianIncome.png
 
Last edited:
#371
#371
lawgator1 said:
You asked, he delivered.

That you don't like it, that it is proof of the fact that the middle class is being squeezed and is fed up, is no reason to simply call it "crap."

Its true. And it is what is behind these rallies.
Click to expand...
No he didnt. That was relative wealth gibberish that ended in 07. Sad nothing of this administration or the beating taken by business owners over the past 3-4 years. Use your freaking head.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#372
#372
lawgator1 said:
The problem with the argument is that it assumes that there is some reason not to tax the same income stream at multiple points because its dividend income. That makes no sense.

The reality is that our system will tax the same incoming dollar multiple times, regardless of the form. If you don't want that to be the case, universally, then fine. But why should someone being paid a dividend not have that taxed as ordinary income when a small business owner might pay taxes on the same dollar coming in to his business and then again when distributed to him as income?

There is nothing magical, or sacrosanct, about that dollar of income just because it was paid to you as a dividend.
Click to expand...
I think double taxation sucks in all forms.

If the argument was framed as you did above, it would be one thing. Instead what we are getting is the height of intellectual dishonesty and the people using the "millionaires are being taxed at a lower rate than secretaries" example as if the income tax system is to blame know it and are merely exploiting wealth envy.
 
#373
#373
BigPapaVol said:
No he didnt. That was relative wealth gibberish that ended in 07. Sad nothing of this administration or the beating taken by business owners over the past 3-4 years. Use your freaking head.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I don't think the last three years would reverse three decades of data. Plus, I don't see how relative wealth is gibberish. Over the last three decades the middle class has been squeezed while the top income has grown 160%. I think percentages is probably the best way to analyze it because if you look at actual income numbers, the top will dwarf the middle class numbers even more.
 
#374
#374
Weezy said:
I don't think the last three years would reverse three decades of data. Plus, I don't see how relative wealth is gibberish. Over the last three decades the middle class has been squeezed while the top income has grown 160%. I think percentages is probably the best way to analyze it because if you look at actual income numbers, the top will dwarf the middle class numbers even more.
Click to expand...
The middle class squeezed line is utter bull. Keep trotting it out and look like you know exactly what the media tells you.

Looking at real incomes is the way to do it. That speaks to purchasing power. Hint: none of them have declined, thus none have been squeezed. The relative wealth idiocy to argue for distribution is for socialistic losers. The poor in America are the wealthiest poor in the world. The middle class is essentially the same. The top 1% idiocy makes this a purely class warfare argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#375
#375
I think the "poor in America are the wealthist poor in the world" is idiocy as well. We have a growing safety net and a lack of individual savings supporting that standard of living.

As far as real income, this is what I found (red x, I'll look for something else)
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top