Occupy Wall Street

[Rainbow Dash]

I'm surprised no one has posted about this yet.

UffHSOP7Nsc

9MNqzZ7H-5U

l05YG8PZb5c

[Amit]

They got maced for chilling on the corner? Fuck the (US) Police.

[paladin]

Fucking hippies.....

[Patrickssj6]

Pepper Spray? Close your eyes and open your mouth. I eat spicy all the time.

Girl was probably thinking "mah freedoooom! damn nazi communist cops, just like in those movies"

[leorimolo]

I think its fair they finally tell corporations to stop fucking them in the anus.

The economy is a lie.... I seriously mean that.

[TVTyrant]

Lol at 0:13 (3rd vid) where the guy punches a cop so the crowd yells "police brutality" when the officer reacts. Stay classy Hippies. Also unnecessary pepper spray was unnecessary.

I agree with the protest though. Our country doesn't give a flying fuck about anyone who isn't a mulch-millionaire. I'm not even voting for president next election. The popular vote doesn't even matter, and my state only has three electoral college votes. My voice doesn't fucking matter to this country.

[n00b1n8R]

"Corporations have more power than the government.."

[TVTyrant]

Our government is the corporations. Or at least its just a tool for them to make money off of.

[Bodzilla]

"i dont even know who's side i'm on.."

[paladin]

I'm on the side that wins, my check book is bigger than yours.

[Bodzilla]

I'm on the side that wins, my check book is bigger than yours.
"i never asked for this."

[Amit]

And politicians play right into their paws.


*somebody keep up the DE:HR trailer quotes in every other post.*

[neuro]

these people, they're like ghosts.
always in the shadows, always hiding behind lies.

[annihilation]

Good ol' America.

[sleepy1212]

finally

[EX12693]

My fellow Americans.... are idiots. :|
Well.. most of them at least.

[Zeph]

Lawyers are gonna have a field day with that macing. They were restrained, unresisting, and stationary.

[DarkHalo003]

Lawyers are gonna have a field day with that macing. They were restrained, unresisting, and stationary.
Aww come on Zeph. It was my first day in the field and I just wanted to try out my new anti-demonstrator pepper spray! What's wrong with wanting to try out my new equipment on live subjects. Honestly.

[Rainbow Dash]

http://wonkette.com/453674/american-media-hates-peaceful-protesters-for-not-being-insane-violent-slobs

[Tnnaas]

So, I'm making plans to leave this sinking ship of intolerance that people call a country. Where do most of our non-American members reside?

[neuro]

tbh, anywhere in europe is pretty good, except for greece atm.

i'd personally recommend either france, germany or holland (in holland everyone speaks english at least)
just be ready for a helluva culture change.

[thehoodedsmack]

Mostly Commonwealth nations. UK, Canada, Australia.

[DarkHalo003]

I love how people are NOW like "IMA GONNA FLEE THIS FASCIST COUNTRY THAT WON'T MEET MY DEMANDS OR ISN'T WHAT I WANT." It really is stupid. This country isn't THAT bad. [/sarcasm]

Did anyone else find it funny that the person even posting this stuff isn't even from this country?

[TeeKup]

tbh, anywhere in europe is pretty good, except for greece atm.

i'd personally recommend either france, germany or holland (in holland everyone speaks english at least)
just be ready for a helluva culture change.


I've seriously debated Germany once I have the ability to.

[neuro]

I love how people are NOW like "IMA GONNA FLEE THIS FASCIST COUNTRY THAT WON'T MEET MY DEMANDS OR ISN'T WHAT I WANT." It really is stupid. This country isn't THAT bad. [/sarcasm]

Did anyone else find it funny that the person even posting this stuff isn't even from this country?

what are you, 14?
if this doesnt interest you, get back to watching fox news instead.

[DarkHalo003]

what are you, 14?
if this doesnt interest you, get back to watching fox news instead.
Uh what? I'm simply pointing out how stupid it is that everyone always does this when something goes wrong in the United States. I've done it myself. Nothing more than that.

[neuro]

and every time shit goes down like this, people DO move out of the country. just because someone posts something on the internet doesnt make it automatically false

[TVTyrant]

I'm moving to Australia if the Republicans win the next election.

No shit.

I'm serious.

[Kornman00]

Fuck going back to Germany. Fuck the Euro conversion rate.

[CN3089]

I'm moving to Australia if the Republicans win the next election.

No shit.

I'm serious.

so would moving to the world's death continent be your penance for not voting?




seriously I would rather live in a republican-controlled fascist america than a socialist-controlled utopian australia



fuck spiders, man

[TVTyrant]

so would moving to the world's death continent be your penance for not voting?




seriously I would rather live in a republican-controlled fascist america than a socialist-controlled utopian australia



fuck spiders, man
My state has three electoral votes. It doesn't matter in this country who I vote for in a presidential election. Its math. I'll still vote for senators, HR members, and local, but until we eliminate the electoral college I don't see a point.

[Bodzilla]

Mostly Commonwealth nations. UK, Canada, Australia.
10 years ago fuck yeah.

now... not so much...

[Bodzilla]

so would moving to the world's death continent be your penance for not voting?




seriously I would rather live in a republican-controlled fascist america than a socialist-controlled utopian australia



fuck spiders, man
not possible bro because both our parties are republican in nature :downs:

help. me.

[sleepy1212]

who would leave when the revolution is just getting started?

:cop:
:cop:
:cop: :ohdear:
:cop:
:cop:

[n00b1n8R]

not possible bro because both our parties are republican in nature :downs:

help. me.
On immigration but I don't see labor being as fucked as the LNP on other issues (and both like public health care!).

[Rainbow Dash]

CvDUq1UzD_8

[Patrickssj6]

Never seen so much fat in one place.

[king_nothing_]

It seems the majority of the protesters are socialists or communists, so I do not support them. What they should be protesting is the Federal Reserve, corporate welfare, cronyism, and government corruption. Most of these people have no clue what the root of the problems are, so they engage in class warfare. Capitalism is not the problem (we have crony capitalism). It's not a lack of regulation. It's too much government; too much collusion between business and government.

Here's one of the few people there who knows what he's talking about:

rQow0Fhua1A

[jcap]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-begins-to-chafe-its-neighbors.html

[king_nothing_]

lol:


By the way, while Wall Street may be responsible for bad things, it is Wall Street who financed putting a million miles of fiber optic cables crisscrossing continents and under oceans. It is Wall Street that financed the thousands of cell towers. It is Wall Street from which venture capital comes to finance startups like Twitter. Thus, tweeting “Down with capitalism” from your iPhone for those around the word to read seems to be the most ironic thing a person can do. The live stream from the protest site, shared with 12,000 (at this moment) people across the Internet is a testament to Wall Street's allocation of capital that these protesters fight against. [Obligatory Monty Python reference (http://youtu.be/ExWfh6sGyso)]

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8910/whathavetheromansdonefo.jpg

[TVTyrant]

If the occupy wall street people want the police to stop retaliating when they push the police (as in pre-3:30) they should all start open carrying. I am waiting for shooting to start, and I guarantee it will be a protestor who fires first.

[king_nothing_]

Open carrying is illegal in New York.

[Warsaw]

It's also illegal to bring a gun you bought elsewhere into New York. And if you own a firearm and aren't already an NYC resident, it is technically illegal for you to even enter the city, even if you don't have said firearm with you.

Also, guns in this situation is bad. Very bad. It's already a powder keg.

[PopeAK49]

Corrupted Swines. Especially the ones that are three years from retirement. They decide to do nothing for just to earn some overtime investment and it's the citizens that get screwed. What happened to 'Our' country. It's almost as if the spoiled mindless children have control over the hard working adults.

[CN3089]

Death to all capitalists

[DarkHalo003]

This whole situation is stupid. The Protesters are trolling. The Police are running around like idiots. The Politicians are fucking retarded (surprise surprise). I say we just nuke the site from orbit.

[Warsaw]

Politicians are having a field day with this, especially the Democrats. "See! We'll make all your problems right if you support us in the next election!"

:downs:

And people being the sheep they are will lap up whatever the parties tell them. Nothing meaningful is going to change.

[sleepy1212]

I'm surprised at the hate being spewed towards them from the media, particularly the right. Actually a little disgusted. You'd think when hippies start protesting the Fed the Tea Party supporters would welcome them.

E: wtf @ Anon false flag?

E2: Slavoj was there...end edit.

[ejburke]

Isn't the whole point of these type of deals to antagonize the police and capture footage of brutality and the absence of due process? If that's not the point, then what is the point?

I want to start a protest against the Sun for emitting harmful UV radiation and the occasional coronal mass ejection. I know that there's no real solution and it is a natural bypoduct of stellar fusion, to which we all owe life on this Earth, but I'm such a fucking idealist that I just won't stand for it and neither should anyone. Let's all keep the police busy and agitated -- if a dozen rapes go unprevented or unsolved, we've done our jobs. Hope I get tazed. Hey, I could be the next "Don't taze me, bro" guy! That would be sweet.

Anyway, sorry if I'm coming off like a dick. I'm not really up on this situation, because I don't care. Things like this remind me of a quote from Winston Churchill -- "Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." These people can have their youthful head in the clouds idealism. I'm too old for it.

[DarkHalo003]

The problem is that the protesters aren't being taken seriously by anyone (except hopeless, spineless Democratic politicians) and the protesters aren't doing anything constructive. Taking a dump on a police car? HOLY SHIT THAT SHOULD CAUSE WASHINGTON TO GIVE ME FREE EVERYTHING! Provoking police to attack you? THAT SHOULD MAKE WASHINGTON FORCE WAGES DEPENDING ON YOUR JOB! Get fired from your job or the job you didn't have because you weren't productively protesting? I WANT SOCIALISM!

[king_nothing_]

I'm surprised at the hate being spewed towards them from the media, particularly the right. Actually a little disgusted. You'd think when hippies start protesting the Fed the Tea Party supporters would welcome them.
The problem is that most of them aren't protesting the Fed, just a minority.

[annihilation]

So far all I see is a bunch of people who made terrible choices in life and are now blaming others for those choices.




http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsxdnw9PxM1r25y9yo1_500.jpg
I am so close to a college degree, but it won’t be enough to get a job when I’m done. I have to take loans for a Masters Program, and hope for the best when that’s done. Meanwhile, the government is protecting the rich and lazy. Shame.

[Cortexian]

All these education ones seem to have a pretty good solution.

Don't take courses you can't afford?

[Warsaw]

Don't go to some over-hyped, expensive out of state college is more like it. Take a few classes at a community college to save some money, then transfer to a full university.

It's called planning!

[TVTyrant]

Don't go to some over-hyped, expensive out of state college is more like it. Take a few classes at a community college to save some money, then transfer to a full university.

It's called planning!
Yay being real people who don't have incredibly wealthy parents!

[Patrickssj6]

I don't have to pay for college, not because I have wealthy parents, we just don't have fees xD

http://i.qkme.me/35650m.jpg

[EX12693]

Heh. I probably won't be able to go to college, at least not for a while after I graduate high school. Not because it's too expensive or anything, but cause I'm getting kicked out on my 18th Bday. So I need to save my money. :/

[n00b1n8R]

Why do Americans pay so much for tertiary education. I'm not paying shit untill I start making >$40K/year and then I'll only have ~$28K to repay over a longass time with 0 interest. If we want a skilled workforce, it's smart for the government to invest in it!

You guys fight against free health care, do people get mad over the prospect of affordable education too?

[DarkHalo003]

Or actually research the colleges in your state. The one I go to, for instance, is considered one of the best (outside of specialized research institutions) and if you keep your GPA at or above 3.0, then your courses are for free past the first 12 hours. My family will end up having to pay close to $3,000 (granted I stop being a dumbfuck and keep my grades where they should be at), which is good considering what most people are paying for not being smart. It's what Warsaw said: IT'S ALL ABOUT PLANNING.

I'm in the state of Georgia, which has an academic scholarship called the Hope scholarship that covers from 90% to 100% of tuition/fees. If I lose hope, I may get knocked out of college. It is as simple and slightly disturbing as that. My parents can only pay as far as living expenses go; most anything else is payed entirely by the government/Hope scholarship (which is payed by money accumulated by the Georgia Lottery).

[sleepy1212]

Why do Americans pay so much for tertiary education.

Because in America when the government says they're going to pay the rates skyrocket beyond reasonable. The Dept of Education basically guarantees to pay whatever the colleges want them to because it's not their money. All this does is make college several times more expensive for those who can't get enough grants to go for free (most of us by a large margin - and right now tuition costs rise several percent faster than cost of living does). The DoE could provide some middle class welfare to offset the additional cost but in reality the state is either going to have to control the schools or gtfo completely.

[n00b1n8R]

Because in America when the government says they're going to pay the rates skyrocket beyond reasonable. The Dept of Education basically guarantees to pay whatever the colleges want them to because it's not their money. All this does is make college several times more expensive for those who can't get enough grants to go for free (most of us by a large margin - and right now tuition costs rise several percent faster than cost of living does). The DoE could provide some middle class welfare to offset the additional cost but in reality the state is either going to have to control the schools or gtfo completely.

so jealous of your free market!

[DarkHalo003]

The idea of what's going on is good and it has great potential seeing as how it works out well in a shitty form, but whole system is basically cluttered with stupid. I hate the bureaucracy because of this; it's inefficient and very messed up. If I was President (or in any form of leadership capable of doing so) and if this was ever possible, I'd destroy the bureaucracy and rebuild it from the ground up. It seriously shits up a lot of the systems in the U.S. Basically, if you haven't caught my drift, a lot of the angst should be aimed at bureaucratic reform and not so much Congressional reform (though both are very much needed).

[Warsaw]

so jealous of your free market!



America doesn't have a free market. I don't know of any country that really does.



That said, anyone in the US who has the chops and is pursuing a degree in the sciences should look into the ASEE SMART scholarship. You get a full ride anywhere, they PAY you a salary, AND you have a guarantees job once you're out.

[Rainbow Dash]

Might be going to check out Occupy Moncton this Saturday, any of our Canadian members gonna check any of our Occupations?

[thehoodedsmack]

Nope. Got a friend who's going to the one in Toronto, though.

[Rainbow Dash]

I wish I was in Toronto, Vancouver, or back home in Ottawa, Moncton is so fucking rural lol

[annihilation]

Apparently the New York mayor is trying to evict everyone occupying wallstreet.
While I may not support the protest 100% that's a really shitty thing to do. And didn't they try this in London with the rioters and it ended up making things worse?

[Bodzilla]

pretty sure the streets are free

[neuro]

they're camping in a privately-owned park.

it's basically a 'get off my property' type-thing

[Bodzilla]

fair enough, still gay as fuck though.

[Syuusuke]

http://i51.tinypic.com/2rxv0xf.jpg

[Rainbow Dash]

Yeah because everyone has 90% of their tuition covered :allears:

The 53% counter-movement is hilariously flawed.

http://wonkette.com/454795/billionaires-chicken-out-on-zuccotti-park-eviction-ocupados-cheer-video

[Kornman00]

Appears Hogwart drop outs joined the NYPD

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/gss-111014-occupy/gss-111014-ows-01.grid-8x2.jpg

e: and smug pigs:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/gss-111014-occupy/gss-111014-ows-04.grid-8x2.jpg

[annihilation]

E: nvm

[Rainbow Dash]

http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupation-party-250x292.jpg

[=sw=warlord]

How familiar? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville)

[dark navi]

How familiar? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville)

The difference is, I know people that are fine(ish) in the money department and still go to these things. Hooverville-ers were all dirt poor.

[TVTyrant]

People who lived in hoovervilles were mainly people who had lost EVERYTHING in the Great Depression. L2AmericanHistory.

Also I am all about that WWII veteran in Sel's link. That guy is awesome.

[EX12693]

That WWII vet is awesome. And Rush made an ass of himself.
Hmm.. my parents listen to Rush Limbaugh.
That explains a lot actually... :/

[thehoodedsmack]

My dad and I listen to Rush Limbaugh whenever we're driving through the USA, too. But for us, it's because we want to keep informed on what the state-of-the-art is for nuttiness.

[Rainbow Dash]

http://images.scribblelive.com/2011/10/15/e00d3750-7ac2-4d03-8e00-6c4f6925919c_500.jpg

haha

[Limited]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049486/Global-protests-Occupy-London-Stock-Exchange-takes-City.html
So yeah, protests been kicking off all over the globe, some happened in London.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/15/article-2049486-0E6224AB00000578-400_634x423.jpg
Police made the man remove his mask...





...who was the man?

Julian Assange bitches
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/15/article-2049486-0E6222B400000578-540_306x423.jpg

[Kornman00]

http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/075/873/original/Raisins_Face.jpg

[Rainbow Dash]

http://wonkette.com/454855/nypd-arrests-woman-for-closing-her-citibank-account-video

[TVTyrant]

who should be careful where they go from now on
made me lol.

[dark navi]

I must be part of the 1%, because I hate these people that are protesting. So much.

[Cortexian]

I must be part of the 1%, because I hate these people that are protesting. So much.
The people protesting are wasting time they could be using to make money to pay off those debts.

Minds = blown.

[Spartan094]

Minds = blown.
http://spartan094.codebrainshideout.net/1317931589756.gif

The only thing I dislike is how most of the rich avoid paying taxes with the loop holes in the system.

[EX12693]

Meh. If everyone just paid the same percentage tax, the rich would be paying more than the poor. I'd be fine with that.

[king_nothing_]

If the federal government was small enough to where it stayed within the confines of the Constitution, we wouldn't need an immoral income tax in the first place.

[Rainbow Dash]

The people protesting are wasting time they could be using to make money to pay off those debts.

Minds = blown.

You don't seem to get it.

A lot of these people are capable of jobs other than your dead end barista at starbucks, or warehouse muscle, whether it be via self teaching, or college/university courses, and they can't find jobs that (in the case of college/uni we're more or less promised if they completed the courses) take advantage of their talents and would let them contribute the most.

Until we have the ability to give everyone jobs that take advantage of their skills everyone should continue protesting.


Capitalism is a failed system that has always allowed a small group to become elite and dictate almost everything, it shits all over the arts unless they have mass appeal (which the good ones usually don't), it shits all over sciences that don't have the potential to make the rich richer, and it encourages greed, which is the single most despicable human characteristic. It's time to replace it with a system that isn't from the fucking dark ages.

[thehoodedsmack]

If the federal government was small enough to where it stayed within the confines of the Constitution, we wouldn't need an immoral income tax in the first place.

Are you against all taxes, or just income taxes?

[king_nothing_]

You don't seem to get it.

A lot of these people are capable of jobs other than your dead end barista at starbucks, or warehouse muscle, whether it be via self teaching, or college/university courses, and they can't find jobs that (in the case of college/uni we're more or less promised if they completed the courses) take advantage of their talents and would let them contribute the most.

Until we have the ability to give everyone jobs that take advantage of their skills everyone should continue protesting.


Capitalism is a failed system that has always allowed a small group to become elite and dictate almost everything, it shits all over the arts unless they have mass appeal (which the good ones usually don't), it shits all over sciences that don't have the potential to make the rich richer, and it encourages greed, which is the single most despicable human characteristic. It's time to replace it with a system that isn't from the fucking dark ages.
Capitalism is a failed system? Capitalism has brought more extraordinary gains to civilization than anything else in human history. What else do you think is responsible for all of those gains, government? Hardly. If you want to talk about a system which has unequivocally failed, we should talk about socialism. Government and socialism have brought more suffering than anything else in human history.

It does encourage greed, but greed is useful. Greed is what drives production and innovation. Greed is what gave us the abundance of production which you see all around you.

The notion that the government can just "give everyone jobs" is absurd. Government is completely incapable of creating efficient, productive jobs. Your idea that everyone should be able to get a job that takes advantage of their talents is absurd. If 3,000 people in a given community have trained to be carpenters, for instance, but there is only a need for 1,000 carpenters, what sense does it make for all 3,000 of those people to be employed as carpenters? Only a market economy can determine what the correct number is. What you're asking for would result in massive inefficiency and simply would not work.

[=sw=warlord]

Need I remind you King_nothing that this site is built upon the concept of socialism..

[king_nothing_]

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/EFI_HumDev.jpg
(The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide.)

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/EFI_LifeSatisfaction.jpg


http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/EFI_EconOutput.jpg


http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/EFI_HumanCapital.jpg
(Human capital: the abilities and skills of any individual, esp those acquired through investment in education and training, that enhance potential income earning)


http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/EFI_CreativeClass.jpg
(Creative class: spans science and technology; arts, culture and entertainment; and the knowledge-based professions.)

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/EFI_Competitiveness.jpg


I'm sure these are all just incredible coincidences though, right?

[king_nothing_]

Are you against all taxes, or just income taxes?
Mainly just income tax. The hidden inflation tax which the Federal Reserve uses by creating money out of thin air is also completely immoral.

If the federal government was as small as it should be, it could be paid for with non-protectionist tariffs and/or excise taxes. We did not even have an income tax for most of our history before 1913.

[Rainbow Dash]

It does encourage greed, but greed is useful. Greed is what drives production and innovation.


That is such a colossal load of shit.

It drives production and innovation if a profit can be made, which is an entirely different thing.

QGCEVy7OXuI

Meanwhile we have e-book manufacturers setting times in their products for them to self destruct so that libraries, and people have to buy news ones with a product that should last decades.

We have game publishers funding studios to remake the same game over and over because the first iteration had mass appeal. (see ea sports, modern warfare, etc) We also see the use of incredibly stupid gimmicks such as regional locking in starcraft 2 that are there for the sole purpose of trying to force people to buy the same game multiple times.

The list goes on and on of dumb greedy bullshit that will be pulled in the attempts to make more money.

Your carpenter example works, sure, but your example doesn't work for anything that isn't limited resources.

We live in a time where people are charging extraordinary sums of money for things that cost virtually nothing to provide, this isn't the 60s anymore, and capitalism wasn't designed to work when there are lots of resources that have an infinite supply (internet service, digital music, video games, digital books, etc), if we don't adapt the system to meet the state of the time we live in, we're going to continue to run into issues.

[Rainbow Dash]

Capitalism is a failed system? Capitalism has brought more extraordinary gains to civilization than anything else in human history.

This looks awfully hollow considering we're sitting on the edge of nearly global economic collapse thanks to capitalism :allears:

[dark navi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlUhjXILXqs&feature=player_embedded

All you haters of capitalism hate living longer. :realsmug:

[Zeph]

We live in a time where people are charging extraordinary sums of money for things that cost virtually nothing to provide, this isn't the 60s anymore, and capitalism wasn't designed to work when there are lots of resources that have an infinite supply (internet service, digital music, video games, digital books, etc), if we don't adapt the system to meet the state of the time we live in, we're going to continue to run into issues.

:facepalm:

Yeah, I'll agree that a nerf sword costing 15 bucks is a bit outrageous. However, if you were to try and make it yourself in large numbers, you'd find yourself spending much more. Foam is cheap, but the machinery to slice the pieces up in a reasonable amount of time, heat molding techniques to have multiple colors of foam as a single piece, the diversity to do your own packaging, and most importantly of all a logistics chain to acquire and release all your resources require a considerable amount of capital that needs to be payed for.

As for digital works, you know that TF2 map you got paid for? I'd like to have you make me another. It won't cost anything to duplicate it to my machine or any further, so I'm not gonna bother paying you beyond commission. I see that this is a fair solution considering you don't have to do any work once I get ahold of it. :smug:


This looks awfully hollow considering we're sitting on the edge of nearly global economic collapse thanks to capitalism

No no no no no. We're sitting on the edge of a potential collapse thanks to sheer idiocy. Stupid people wanting to do stupid things with their money because they don't know any better is the single cause of this. Not once has a record company done something that would cause a person to miss a payment on their house. Not once has a grocery store chain caused a person to apply for a loan they couldn't afford. Not once has an automobile company or a 'Ma and Pa' diner made a person decide they want to attend an out of state college and take out stupidly high amounts of loans.

Capitalism is one entity's focus in creation or action to fill the need of one who can not meet that need by them self. It is the principle of trade that has existed since recorded history and it hasn't changed at all since then. People are still doing the same stupid shit they were doing over a thousand years ago. Just because we started calling it something new about a hundred and fifty years ago doesn't mean it's this great new thing that's never happened before.

[king_nothing_]

That is such a colossal load of shit.
No, not really.


Meanwhile we have e-book manufacturers setting times in their products for them to self destruct so that libraries, and people have to buy news ones with a product that should last decades.
So don't buy them? Pretty simple. If consumers don't like the product, they won't buy it and the product will fail. If the product sticks around, then apparently it is meeting some consumers' needs.


We have game publishers funding studios to remake the same game over and over because the first iteration had mass appeal. (see ea sports, modern warfare, etc) We also see the use of incredibly stupid gimmicks such as regional locking in starcraft 2 that are there for the sole purpose of trying to force people to buy the same game multiple times.
Same response as above.


We live in a time where people are charging extraordinary sums of money for things that cost virtually nothing to provide, this isn't the 60s anymore, and capitalism wasn't designed to work when there are lots of resources that have an infinite supply (internet service, digital music, video games, digital books, etc), if we don't adapt the system to meet the state of the time we live in, we're going to continue to run into issues.
There are things that cost nothing to provide? What...?


This looks awfully hollow considering we're sitting on the edge of nearly global economic collapse thanks to capitalism :allears:
This right here highlights how uninformed you are on the issue. Our economic problems have nothing to do with capitalism. The cause of problem is central economic planning. The Fed purposely used low interest rates to encourage investment in housing, and the government passed specific legislation to do the same. That directly caused over-investment and malinvestment in housing. They caused a misdirection of production. On top of that, it was widely known beforehand that big banks would be bailed out if they collapsed, which caused them to not behave as prudently as they otherwise would had they been exposed to the risk of actual failure. The Fed created a moral hazard.

Me and others have explained all this before, but you seem to just not want to hear it. Open up your brain and think about it for a change. You can't blame free market capitalism for something when free market capitalism doesn't even exist.

Government/the Fed attempts to control and steer the economy, and they fail amazingly at it. They try to "prevent" recessions and corrections, but all they do is put them off and make them more painful when they finally hit. They create the business cycle (boom -> bust, boom -> bust, repeat). Trying to prevent corrections is absurd. You need small corrections from time to time. Small corrections are certainly better than artificial booms and gigantic busts created by the central bank and the government.

Then after they do all this, the uninformed masses blame it on "capitalism" instead of the actual perpetrators, and clamor to give the perpetrators even more power and control over the system. How utterly ridiculous.

[EX12693]

Words
^

[Rainbow Dash]

Open up your brain and think about it for a change.

This is pretty funny considering you're against even attempting/considering any other economic system.

[king_nothing_]

This is pretty funny considering you're against even attempting/considering any other economic system.
I have considered other systems. I've studied them. It's now become obvious to me which one makes the most sense.

[Gwunty]

*images and shit*
I'm sure these are all just incredible coincidences though, right?
Yeah, I mean its not like a socialist country such as Sweden is above the USA in almost every aspect.

[king_nothing_]

Yeah, I mean its not like a socialist country such as Sweden is above the USA in almost every aspect.
So, in six graphs, each of which plot well over a hundred countries, and consistently show obvious correlations between economic freedom and various positive measurements, you pick two data points to try to make a point? lol. Also, it looks to me like Sweden is ahead of the US in about half of them, not "almost every aspect".

Also, characterizing Sweden as "socialist" and the US as "not socialist" is disingenuous. Both are partially socialist and partially capitalist; both have mixed systems. Sweden just leans a bit more to the former.

[TVTyrant]

Canada, Sweden, and the Aussies are kicking are asses in those graphs. Ffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu-

King, you mkake some very good points. I'm not a fan of socialism either. Hell, I'd LOVE to not have to pay income taxes. But thats not reality. Our military takes up 800 billion a year. That's outrageous. Before you look at social programs and so called "wasteful spending" on the people of this country, look at the mass inefficiency of our military system. I'm not saying we need to cut body armor, but do we really need 8 kinds of F-15? Or 6 kinds of F-16? Or 13 kinds of F-18? Or like 13 different combat helicopter systems? Thats a problem to me.

Also: F u Sel and calling out EA Sports. NCAA is an ectremely improved product every year. Madden might not be, but I don't buy that one.

[king_nothing_]

King, you mkake some very good points. I'm not a fan of socialism either. Hell, I'd LOVE to not have to pay income taxes. But thats not reality. Our military takes up 800 billion a year. That's outrageous. Before you look at social programs and so called "wasteful spending" on the people of this country, look at the mass inefficiency of our military system. I'm not saying we need to cut body armor, but do we really need 8 kinds of F-15? Or 6 kinds of F-16? Or 13 kinds of F-18? Or like 13 different combat helicopter systems? Thats a problem to me.
I completely agree. I don't fail to look at that area either. Our military spending is beyond ridiculous. The Constitution calls for a common defense. What we have, though, is far more than that. We have aggressive militarism. We pay for the defense of other nations. We have ~900 military bases around the world and we're in ~130 countries. What does that have to do with defense? Nothing. If our military spending was cut in half, we would still spend three times more than any other country in the world. How ridiculous is that?

[Zeph]

This is pretty funny considering you're against even attempting/considering any other economic system.

Not like there are many alternatives. Capitalism is where the capital is owned by individuals; socialism, the state; imperialism, the favored.

[Zeph]

I'm not saying we need to cut body armor, but do we really need 8 kinds of F-15? Or 6 kinds of F-16? Or 13 kinds of F-18? Or like 13 different combat helicopter systems? Thats a problem to me.

No, that's stupid ignorance of you. Higher tech weapon platforms continue to evolve as they are produced, their production environments evolve, and generally things that can't be found until they're actually used are discovered. Lets take a look at the F-15:

F-15A - initial rollout model.
F-15B - initial two seat trainer. Believe it or not, computers sucked back when these things were made and you actually needed a person to push button and turn knob to target tank.
F-15C - After a decade of research, production, and technological advance upgrades were made to the platform and future models were produced with these upgrades.
F-15D - Ditto, but two seater.
F-15E - Multirole variant to the platform. Allowed longer ranger and more versatile use of military aircraft without having to fund a completely new program. Also made use of past research into upgrades. Served as a standalone system that actually REDUCED the amount of aircraft required to complete a mission.
F-15SE - Applied decades of research into a version that reduces the FRCS of the aircraft.

Not sure what other two variants you think we have, but the rest are exports we make money off.

Not a single A/B variant was produced after C/D variants were produced. The rest fill specific roles that would otherwise need a completely new aircraft. The only questionable variant in this case would be the silent eagle, but it ultimately works like better body armor. E's were still produced while C/D's were, but that's because they both do different things. C/D is air superiority while E is something focused on completing a task. E is to C/D as F-35 is to F-22 in this case.

[dark navi]

http://www.odinseye.org/OccupySeattle/IMG_8541.JPG

Except money is speech...

[Zeph]

Why are they so fat?

[Bodzilla]

[COLOR=#222222]
Capitalism is a failed system? Capitalism has brought more extraordinary gains to civilization than anything else in human history. What else do you think is responsible for all of those gains, government? Hardly. If you want to talk about a system which has unequivocally failed, we should talk about socialism. Government and socialism have brought more suffering than anything else in human history.

do you know the difference between socialism and communism?

last i checked people in countrys like denmark where a hell of alot better off then people in other parts of the world.

[dark navi]

I find it hard to compare the life style in the United States to other countries, as we use our monies a lot differently. We all have different motivations and expectations.

[TVTyrant]

Why are they so fat?
Why aren't you?

[king_nothing_]

do you know the difference between socialism and communism?
Uh, yeah, I do, though something tells me you might not.


last i checked people in countrys like denmark where a hell of alot better off then people in other parts of the world.
"Better off" is subjective. Sure, I would say they're "better off" than some places, due to the fact that they have one of the freest economies, high amount of political freedom, high amount of civil liberties, low corruption, etc.

[CN3089]

capitalism is evil and if you support it you are evil as well



well, cya.

[dark navi]

capitalism is evil and if you support it you are evil as well



well, cya.

How are you not a famous politician?

[Kornman00]

well, cya.
wait, come back

[Warsaw]

Is it inaccurate to say that socialism is more like a government spending policy and less like an economic ideology?

[neuro]

funny thing abot this, king and nvous are BOTH right.

just defending different points of view, and focussing in different parts of the 'system'.

[king_nothing_]

Is it inaccurate to say that socialism is more like a government spending policy and less like an economic ideology?
That's not how I would describe it.

Socialism is an economic system in which the state owns, or there is common ownership of, the means of production.

[Warsaw]

Except that doesn't seem to be what people mean when they say "socialism." When people say "socialism" these days, I feel like they are usually referring to a policy favouring large amounts of government-funded welfare programs and public services in exchange for higher tax rates.

I'm not saying that's what it is, but that is what people around where I live refer to it as.

[Bodzilla]

That's not how I would describe it.

Socialism is an economic system in which the state owns, or there is common ownership of, the means of production.
thats communism.

Socialism is where support programs are set up to stop people being homeless, and turning these so called useless people into productive parts of society by free health care and greater education which fosters a more intelligent community, which increase's productivity and lowers cost long term and ends such trivial things like poverty, crime (well greatly decrease's it) and people being born into situations they cant escape.

[king_nothing_]

thats communism.
It's socialism. Communism is the same thing, but with additions: there is no longer a state, and there are no longer any classes. A "communist state" is just a state that is aiming to create such a society. In Marxist theory, socialism is a phase of development on the road to communism.


Socialism is where support programs are set up to stop people being homeless, and turning these so called useless people into productive parts of society
That's a welfare state. It has socialist aspects, sure, but you cannot just label it socialist. Socialism is the lack of economic freedom, so what sense does it make to label countries as socialist, such as the Scandinavian countries, when they rank comparably to the US in economic freedom measurements?

[neuro]

it's socialism in the eyes of most americans.

in most parts of the 'western' world, it's called common sense.

[sleepy1212]

in most parts of the 'western' world, it's called common sense the reason half of europe is tanking.

This idea that the welfare state is helping is ludicrous. It's exacerbating the problem by not solving it and opting to treat the symptoms instead. It's no better than corporations getting bailed out - just on an individual scale and with a sadder story. Sel was kinda right about how things are overpriced but he chose luxuries as examples. If you want to help people and increase happiness through standard of living you have to make everyone wealthy. Not by giving everyone more money but by making things cheap. Cheap as in unmarketable. Things like food and water. In other words, it's quite possible to make basic food free. Not by subsidy or by FDA/USDA/DoAg intervention, but free - or rather comparatively free.

By making a sincere step towards post-scarcity both socialism (see step #3: communism) and capitalism become irrelevant because they would be squabbling over luxuries.

[dark navi]

I'm fine paying taxes for things that benefit myself, as well as my community and those who are actually in need, but why the hell should I give my hard earned money to people that can go out and work just as my self? Spreading the wealth is bullshit.

[neuro]

This idea that the welfare state is helping is ludicrous. It's exacerbating the problem by not solving it and opting to treat the symptoms instead. It's no better than corporations getting bailed out - just on an individual scale and with a sadder story. Sel was kinda right about how things are overpriced but he chose luxuries as examples. If you want to help people and increase happiness through standard of living you have to make everyone wealthy. Not by giving everyone more money but by making things cheap. Cheap as in unmarketable. Things like food and water. In other words, it's quite possible to make basic food free. Not by subsidy or by FDA/USDA/DoAg intervention, but free - or rather comparatively free.

By making a sincere step towards post-scarcity both socialism (see step #3: communism) and capitalism become irrelevant because they would be squabbling over luxuries.

you're so unbelievably wrong dude.
It isn't FREE MONEY.

it's a safety-net for people in case they get fucked by whatever circumstances and such might come to pass, so that you don't end up with NOTHING stuck in a black hole you can't get out of.

I was unfortunate enough to have to rely on welfare myself for a while, and all you get is enough to survive, but not enough to live from.

it's sad to see that most of you are just selfish brats.
i can understand the feeling of not wanting to be forced to give you money to lazy cunts, but that's just a flaw in the system selecting who should be eligable for this welfare, and not a flaw in 'welfare' or taxes in general.

unfortunately, those systems are always easily abused by people looking to get free money from the system.
there's nothing wrong with being social.

if you don't want to pay taxes so some old lady can get a hip replacement, you're basically shooting your own grandmother in the hip, and in the same sense, yourself too, when you're old and wringly and hurl your ass down a flight of stairs and need a new hip (extreme scenario, but that's what it boils down to)

everyone pays to help everyone.
that's the general idea.

and if you don't want to help anyone except for yourself, you may as well shoot yourself because you're a worthless human being.


edit: Dark navi,

i agree, but again, that's just a flaw in the system that SELECTS who should receive support from the system.

[TVTyrant]

I'm fine paying taxes for things that benefit myself, as well as my community and those who are actually in need, but why the hell should I give my hard earned money to people that can go out and work just as my self? Spreading the wealth is bullshit.
So you don't believe in public schools, any form of organized healthcare, emergency services, roads, or anything of that sort eh? How awesome of you.

[=sw=warlord]

And with the above two posts from neuro and tyrant, this site has just become that much more bearable.

[Patrickssj6]

I'm fine paying taxes for things that benefit myself, as well as my community and those who are actually in need, but why the hell should I give my hard earned money to people that can go out and work just as my self? Spreading the wealth is bullshit.
Swallowed American propaganda much. Can't stand that "from wrecks to riches" bullshit.

The fact that you are able to work and earn money at all is because you were favored in life. And guess what, while you were favored, other people weren't.

[king_nothing_]

you're so unbelievably wrong dude.
It isn't FREE MONEY.

it's a safety-net for people in case they get fucked by whatever circumstances and such might come to pass, so that you don't end up with NOTHING stuck in a black hole you can't get out of.

I was unfortunate enough to have to rely on welfare myself for a while, and all you get is enough to survive, but not enough to live from.

it's sad to see that most of you are just selfish brats.
i can understand the feeling of not wanting to be forced to give you money to lazy cunts, but that's just a flaw in the system selecting who should be eligable for this welfare, and not a flaw in 'welfare' or taxes in general.

unfortunately, those systems are always easily abused by people looking to get free money from the system.
there's nothing wrong with being social.

if you don't want to pay taxes so some old lady can get a hip replacement, you're basically shooting your own grandmother in the hip, and in the same sense, yourself too, when you're old and wringly and hurl your ass down a flight of stairs and need a new hip (extreme scenario, but that's what it boils down to)

everyone pays to help everyone.
that's the general idea.

and if you don't want to help anyone except for yourself, you may as well shoot yourself because you're a worthless human being.
Social programs do not create prosperity, but rather they slow the growth of it. Every cent that is taken from people to fund state spending is one less cent available to invest in the private sector to fund R&D, expansion of production, expansion of job creation, etc., all of which would ultimately result in growth of prosperity. Also, when you tax one person to subsidize the other, you reduce both of their incentives to be productive. If you truly are for the betterment of civilization, you ought to rethink what you're arguing for and against. Anti-capitalist measures hurt progress, prosperity, and the overall standard of living of the population. All you're worrying about is income equality, which is the only thing redistributive taxes provide, but it does so at the expense of everything else I just explained.

[Limited]

All I know is I pay a fuckton of tax, and all I seem to get back is a bucket of shit thrown in my face from the government.

Land of the free, what a joke (referring to USA, and I do know thats free as in, liberated).

[neuro]

king, did you even read my post at all?

[TVTyrant]

Totally have to disagree on the "free market". My big problem with it is this era called the Gilded Age in America, improperly named because the labor of the irishmen and negro lined the pockets of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and JP Morgan to the point where only the most badass president in history (TR) could stop them. The free market is a bucket of shit. It basically says that all the WASPs can spit in the faces of all the other people in this country and we can't do shit about it.
I guess my problem isn't the way economics are run, rather than the people who exploit them. There are some people who very much deserve their wealth. And then their are the corporate fat cats who rape our people for every cent possible, while paying off our government and making the voice of the people worthless.

FUCK RICH PEOPLE. That is all.

[DarkHalo003]

Totally have to disagree on the "free market". My big problem with it is this era called the Gilded Age in America, improperly named because the labor of the irishmen and negro lined the pockets of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and JP Morgan to the point where only the most badass president in history (TR) could stop them. The free market is a bucket of shit. It basically says that all the WASPs can spit in the faces of all the other people in this country and we can't do shit about it.
I guess my problem isn't the way economics are run, rather than the people who exploit them. There are some people who very much deserve their wealth. And then their are the corporate fat cats who rape our people for every cent possible, while paying off our government and making the voice of the people worthless.

FUCK RICH PEOPLE. That is all.

Don't ever believe anything the media says about this being the age of anything. They say shit they really doesn't do anything and is most always an exaggeration in terms of labeling/titling. Just a general rule of thumb when analyzing.

Don't fuck with the Rich people leading Corporations. It's a shitty situation, but Corporations have more leverage; they supply jobs. Taxing them makes them more likely to fire employees to compensate for lowered revenue. Just fucking leave them alone; any taxing the gov't does to them is counterproductive. Now in terms of taxing the shit out of individuals who don't employee mass amounts of people, well, go right ahead. Pro-Football players and Actors making six plus digits need to learn how to manage their cash anyways.

[=sw=warlord]

@DarkHalo:
To say companies will fire staff to compensate is completely ignoring the other details.
One that stands out to me is companies will fire staff they feel they do not need whether they are taxed or not, it's called business efficiency.

[DarkHalo003]

@DarkHalo:
To say companies will fire staff to compensate is completely ignoring the other details.
One that stands out to me is companies will fire staff they feel they do not need whether they are taxed or not, it's called business efficiency.
Yes, but companies/corporations are more likely to fire staff if they are taxed heavily. I'm just talking about one issue with heavily taxing corporations. There are a lot of other factors that fall in place.

[sleepy1212]

Taxing them always ends up taxing us.

The Federal government taxes gas 32%. "Big Oil" doesn't pay this. We do. 32 cents out of every dollar in gas. at $3.50 per gallon the Federal government takes $1.12. Gas would be $2.38.

Same goes for any business. Even if you tax CEO income. Wanna tax them 70% they'll just give themselves 70% raises and pass the cost onto the consumer.

The only thing this accomplishes is increased tax on the poor. Which is then redirected back at them in the form of welfare. The only thing that changes is who decides how it gets spent. The human being who worked for it, or uncaring, unelected bureaucrats. Ultimately that is what it is all about. Control.

Further, higher taxation leads to other shortcuts. Whether it's environmental, quality, or just plain moving to another country. What we end up with is what we have now: Domestic corporations with operations overseas in third world countries making shitty products for pennies while polluting the local environment and supporting despots who collect kickbacks to rob and murder opposition to modern day slavery and selling it all back to us at 1000% markup.

So sure, we have food stamps and if you're lucky 50% in unemployment pay but at what cost? Slavery, pollution, inferior quality, no jobs, out of control personal and national debt, cronyism, starvation, useless educations, high taxes, and a complicit propaganda machine known as the media to turn a generation full of Lady Gaga fans into a mindless collection of morons screaming for more like they're in some underground BDSM club staffed by DMV clerks.

So yea, Socialism is working out just fucking great. All we need now is more money.

[TVTyrant]

Yes, but companies/corporations are more likely to fire staff if they are taxed heavily. I'm just talking about one issue with heavily taxing corporations. There are a lot of other factors that fall in place.
Where does this information come from? FUCKING WHERE? I want to see a fucking chart because thats a crock of shit.

[EX12693]

Um... well I know for a fact that because of the high taxes in the US, businesses are leaving and outsourcing jobs to other countries because it's cheaper.
It's sort of common sense that businesses will somehow compensate if taxed. If they choose not to move, they'll trim down the workforce so they don't have to pay as many people.
My dad is an equipment installer for Verizon Telecommunications. He works in the central offices and at the equipment sheds of cellphone towers. He used to be part of a 20 man crew. Now there are 5, including him, and the same work/time ratio for the 20 man crew is still expected to be done. Case and point; businesses will cut back wherever they think they can to save a buck, even if things may run a bit slower. It's all about the money.

[Patrickssj6]

Um... well I know for a fact that because of the high taxes in the US, businesses are leaving and outsourcing jobs to other countries because it's cheaper.
Taxes in the US are pretty average, outsourcing still occurs regardless of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

[=sw=warlord]

My dad is an equipment installer for Verizon Telecommunications. He works in the central offices and at the equipment sheds of cellphone towers. He used to be part of a 20 man crew. Now there are 5, including him, and the same work/time ratio for the 20 man crew is still expected to be done. Case and point; businesses will cut back wherever they think they can to save a buck, even if things may run a bit slower. It's all about the money.
That's called slim-lining your workforce for a better, more efficient workforce.
There is such a thing as having too many cooks in the kitchen.


Um... well I know for a fact that because of the high taxes in the US, businesses are leaving and outsourcing jobs to other countries because it's cheaper.
You are kidding aren't you?
Please tell me you are.
Let me give you an example:
here in the UK we are charged £2.19 per U.S. gallon of fuel in taxes, in currency conversion that is $3.45 in taxes alone.

[EX12693]

Taxes in the US are pretty average, outsourcing still occurs regardless of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg
Take a look at that graph. Take a look at the corporate income tax rate of the US. Outsourcing to anywhere but Japan is cheaper. My dad has a friend who is moving to Ireland because of his job. Take a look at the corporate income tax there.


That's called slim-lining your workforce for a better, more efficient workforce.
There is such a thing as having too many cooks in the kitchen.

Except that in the example I provided, it isn't a case of 'too many cooks.' It actually harms efficiency since equipment cant be installed as quickly as they're demanding.

[dark navi]

You are kidding aren't you?
Please tell me you are.
Let me give you an example:
here in the UK we are charged £2.19 per U.S. gallon of fuel in taxes, in currency conversion that is $3.45 in taxes alone.

Gas is one area that I agree that we pay way too much for, but that's because of OPEC. Unfortunately, the gas prices still hasn't forced us to actually invest in another fuel source, even though the technology is out there.

[=sw=warlord]

Gas is one area that I agree that we pay way too much for, but that's because of OPEC. Unfortunately, the gas prices still hasn't forced us to actually invest in another fuel source, even though the technology is out there.
You missed my point by a mile, I hear people from the US complaining that their fuel costs them nearly 4 dollars a gallon and yet here we pay near that in tax, consider we buy fuel by the litre not by gallon, said litre costs £1.30[+/-£0.05] and then consider a litre is 0.264 of a gallon.
You can see the point I am making here.

[DarkHalo003]

Where does this information come from? FUCKING WHERE? I want to see a fucking chart because thats a crock of shit.
What? It's a blatantly obvious business strategy. Guess where the bulk of funds go in the majority of Corporations with a massive workforce? The workforce. So guess what's going to happen to the workers? They'll be fired to cut back on money being spent. Unless you lived in lalaland during the beginning of this shit crisis involving the automotive makers, you should have easily seen what happened when the companies lost money; they allocated funds away from their employees (they fired them to cut back on funds spent). So effectively, the people screaming for heavier taxes on business aren't being realistic because, frankly, the Corporations don't need all of the employees and will fire as many as it takes to keep their situation in the US firm while keeping a balanced checkbook. Must I really spell it out for you? Outsourcing isn't the idealistic "Because they want a more skilled work force" it's to cut back on spending. And if outsourcing exists in an "average" taxing state now, then increasing the taxes even further will increase the outsourcing rate.

@Warlord: That's because all of America whines about everything. It kind of pisses me off and I'm doing less of it because it's really making this country's people look even more ludicrous.

[TVTyrant]

Let me elaborate. I don't want to tax a business. I want to tax people. Rich people.

[dark navi]

Let me elaborate. I don't want to tax a business. I want to tax people. Rich people.

So you want to tax just rich people? How is that fair?

[jcap]

Also rich is everyone above $350,000. Fuck Obama and his definition of "rich" as a family in NYC making more than $250,000/yr combined

[TVTyrant]

So you want to tax just rich people? How is that fair?
No no no, I just want to tax them more than everyone else. Like 10% more.

[Bobblehob]

That still isn't fair.

[jcap]

The idea is that since they make way more, even after living expenses and unnecessary spending, they can afford to pay more in taxes.

[Bobblehob]

That still isn't fair, it doesnt matter if they can afford it or not, the dont deserve to have more money taken away just because they have it.

[thehoodedsmack]

We've got it such that income taxes are set up in brackets. Everyone pays the same rate for the first bracket, then people that make more than that pay an extra tax on their income that falls into the next bracket, and if they make more than that, the next bracket, etc, etc, with each higher bracket being taxed a higher percentage. Do you guys not do something similar? Maybe try that.

For example, here's the Federal income tax percentages for Canada for 2011:

15% on the first $41,544 of taxable income PLUS
22% on the next $41,544 of taxable income PLUS
26% on the next $45,712 of taxable income PLUS
29% of taxable income over $128,800.

We also pay Provincial income tax. Here's the rates for the province of Ontario. That's where Sel, Hotrod, and I live.

5.05% on the first $37,774 of taxable income PLUS
9.15% on the next $37,776 PLUS
11.16% on the amount over $75,550

[dark navi]

Why not just slap a flat ~25% income tax on everyone and call it good?

We do have tax brackets at the moment, but I think that is what all the uproar is about.

[Bobblehob]

That is what we have already Navi, but its 35 percent. And no, we don't need a Canada style bracket, that is ridiculous.

[dark navi]

That is what we have already, but its more like 35 percent. And know, we don't need a Canada style bracket, that is ridiculous.

Who is we? The US? Because that's not what we (US) have...

[TVTyrant]

We've got it such that income taxes are set up in brackets. Everyone pays the same rate for the first bracket, then people that make more than that pay an extra tax on their income that falls into the next bracket, and if they make more than that, the next bracket, etc, etc, with each higher bracket being taxed a higher percentage. Do you guys not do something similar? Maybe try that.

For example, here's the Federal income tax percentages for Canada for 2011:

15% on the first $41,544 of taxable income PLUS
22% on the next $41,544 of taxable income PLUS
26% on the next $45,712 of taxable income PLUS
29% of taxable income over $128,800.

We also pay Provincial income tax. Here's the rates for the province of Ontario. That's where Sel, Hotrod, and I live.

5.05% on the first $37,774 of taxable income PLUS
9.15% on the next $37,776 PLUS
11.16% on the amount over $75,550
This is amazing. I am officially all about this.

[Bobblehob]

Who is we? The US? Because that's not what we (US) have...

Yeah, that is exactly what we have, a flat rate federal income tax, but unfortunately, we also have state income and property taxes that vary as well as capital gains taxes which almost exclusively effect the rich.

Edit: Also, Tyrant, explain to me how that is in any way fair?

[TVTyrant]

Yeah, that is exactly what we have, a flat rate federal income tax, but unfortunately, we also have state income and property taxes that vary as well as capital gains taxes which almost exclusively effect the rich.

Edit: Also, Tyrant, explain to me how that is in any way fair?
Who gives a fuck about fair? Corporations are counted as people. Motherfucking PEOPLE. Yeah, thats fair.
And no we don't have a flat tax because of all the bs business reductions, returns, and subsidies.

[thehoodedsmack]

They're counted as people here, too. Personally, if I made enough to be counted in the top bracket, I'd be pleased to pay every cent I owe, since I love all the local, provincial, and federal services our tax dollars provide us.

[Bobblehob]

Who gives a fuck about fair? Corporations are counted as people. Motherfucking PEOPLE. Yeah, thats fair.
And no we don't have a flat tax because of all the bs business reductions, returns, and subsidies.

Exactly my point! Why the fuck do the people who make the larger amounts of money, have to give away a larger percentage of it? How is that fair?

[TVTyrant]

Exactly my point! Why the fuck do the people who make the larger amounts of money, have to give away a larger percentage of it? How is that fair?
http://openwheelamerica.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gremlins-madashell.jpg
Literally my face right now.

[Bobblehob]

Are you that thick headed? Why do you take more money just because they have it? Why do you think that is fair!? They earned that money, and they deserve to keep it. If they want to give away more of it, like thehoodedsmack said, that is perfectly fine, but forcing them to do it is WRONG.

[thehoodedsmack]

It's really just for the benefit of the state, Bobblehob. There's no "fair" involved. The government needs money to operate, and scalping a few more percentage points off the income of everyone in higher and higher tax brackets adds up. It's for the benefit of everyone, except the fraction of money lost by those who pay a higher percentage.

Nobody said it was fair, but it's alleviates the three alternative options:

1) Make everyone pay a low rate, so that low-income families can continue to survive.
Outcome: Loss of revenue from high-income families.

2) Make everyone pay an averaged rate, so that revenue can be maintained at a consistent level.
Outcome: Strain on low-income families, and still a loss of potential revenue from high-income families.

3) Make everyone pay a high rate, so that the income of high-income families can be utilized to its fullest.
Outcome: Severe strain on low-income families, at the cost of retaining usual revenue.

[TVTyrant]

Are you that thick headed? Why do you take more money just because they have it? Why do you think that is fair!? They earned that money, and they deserve to keep it. If they want to give away more of it, like thehoodedsmack said, that is perfectly fine, but forcing them to do it is WRONG.
Have you ever had a job? A tough job? A hard job where you got sweaty and did WORK?

[Bobblehob]

It's really just for the benefit of the state, Bobblehob. There's no "fair" involved. The government needs money to operate, and scalping a few more percentage points off the income of everyone in higher and higher tax brackets adds up. It's for the benefit of everyone, except the fraction of money lost by those who pay a higher percentage.

Nobody said it was fair, but it's alleviates the three alternative options:

1) Make everyone pay a low rate, so that low-income families can continue to survive.
Outcome: Loss of revenue from high-income families.

2) Make everyone pay an averaged rate, so that revenue can be maintained at a consistent level.
Outcome: Strain on low-income families, and still a loss of potential revenue from high-income families.

3) Make everyone pay a high rate, so that the income of high-income families can be utilized to its fullest.
Outcome: Severe strain on low-income families, at the cost of retaining usual revenue.

I understand that. But as it is the government should be smaller in the first place, so that the low flat tax rate can be utilized, instead of brackets that penalize the more successful.

[=sw=warlord]

To be honest I don't think he's even old enough to be in a job yet.
@bobblehob, look at it this way. is it not wrong to deprive workers of earnings they should be getting for their hardwork whilst those at the top who do little more than moan when the cheque book isn't quite moist enough get away with exploiting their workforce?
How is it fair that the workforce do the majority of the labor whilst those at the top get to go on holiday for 6 months [paid holiday at that] for doing relatively little in comparison to the rest of the work force?

[thehoodedsmack]

I understand that. But as it is the government should be smaller in the first place, so that the low flat tax rate can be utilized, instead of brackets that penalize the more successful.

In a country with as many people as yours, I'm not sure that's possible. It takes a lot of tax dollars to maintain the infrastructure of a country like the USA. In fact, in the most expansive and prosperous times for the USA, your top tax rate was over 90%. It's been falling ever since, and your country is looking worse for the wear. I'm not saying that's a causal link, but it's certainly an alarming correlation.

[Warsaw]

We've got it such that income taxes are set up in brackets. Everyone pays the same rate for the first bracket, then people that make more than that pay an extra tax on their income that falls into the next bracket, and if they make more than that, the next bracket, etc, etc, with each higher bracket being taxed a higher percentage. Do you guys not do something similar? Maybe try that.

For example, here's the Federal income tax percentages for Canada for 2011:

15% on the first $41,544 of taxable income PLUS
22% on the next $41,544 of taxable income PLUS
26% on the next $45,712 of taxable income PLUS
29% of taxable income over $128,800.

We also pay Provincial income tax. Here's the rates for the province of Ontario. That's where Sel, Hotrod, and I live.

5.05% on the first $37,774 of taxable income PLUS
9.15% on the next $37,776 PLUS
11.16% on the amount over $75,550


In extremely simplified terms, we have a flat federal income tax rate for all, with variable state and local income tax rates. We also have a state-regulated sales tax rate (in VA, it's 5%), and a property tax (this one is bullshit).

The problem is that a lot of the money that the wealthy make is non-taxable or because of certain donations, they get huge deductibles. The government therefore doesn't make as much money off of them as they should.

Our system is so screwy and confusing, and the IRS relies on that sometimes to get you to pony up cash that you don't technically owe. e.g. They changed tax code from 2008 to 2009, and they tried to collect extra money for the 2008 fiscal year according to the new code. You can point it out to the mall you want, which is abnormal because most people won't bother to look it up, but they'll just stuff their ears and say "blah blah blah pay up or we tack on more fees and haul you to court!"

[Bobblehob]

To be honest I don't think he's even old enough to be in a job yet.
@bobblehob, look at it this way. is it not wrong to deprive workers of earnings they should be getting for their hardwork whilst those at the top who do little more than moan when the cheque book isn't quite moist enough get away with exploiting their workforce?
How is it fair that the workforce do the majority of the labor whilst those at the top get to go on holiday for 6 months [paid holiday at that] for doing relatively little in comparison to the rest of the work force?

Ah, yes, now we get to the condescending responses, I am 19, I do have a job, and I am not an idiot, So don't talk to me like I am one.

To be quite honest with you, I don't make much money. I don't feel jealousy towards those people, I don't pretend to know just how much work they do or do not have to do, and how much responsibility any of them has on their shoulders as compared to the little I have in my low paying job. You are also making a massive generalization about how the workforce is treated by their employers. I had the privilege of meeting the CEO of the company I work for on Friday of this past week. I am not treated badly, they do not take money from me, in-fact I make more than most people with similar jobs to mine. You cannot say that the majority or even the minority of these people exploit their workforce.

[dark navi]

It is the companies decision to pay them that. Who the hell are you to say that someone should or shouldn't get paid a certain amount of money?

e: Sorry I rage-type. I'll stop.

[=sw=warlord]

Ah, yes, now we get to the condescending responses, I am 19, I do have a job, and I am not an idiot, So don't talk to me like I am one.
Consider what you like to be condescending or not, your choice.
Not what I intended but alas, assumptions make asses of us all at times.


To be quite honest with you, I don't make much money. I don't feel jealousy towards those people, I don't pretend to know just how much work they do or do not have to do, and how much responsibility any of them has on their shoulders as compared to the little I have in my low paying job.
I've taken various studies both education [ala educational center] and personal studies in what is required in terms of responsibility, I won't go into full detail as that would take a very long time to detail it in full.
So let me leave it at this, the larger your business is, the more of your responsibility is removed and put into the hands of your sub managers, I recently had the chance to see this in force first hand and seeing how the deputy manager had to pick up the slack for the branch manager, said manager has supposedly left only to be replaced by someone worse.
You are also making a massive generalization about how the workforce is treated by their employers. I had the privilege of meeting the CEO of the company I work for on Friday of this past week.
I am not treated badly, they do not take money from me, in-fact I make more than most people with similar jobs to mine. You cannot say that the majority or even the minority of these people exploit their workforce.

A few years ago I had the privilege to go to the main IBM center in the UK and whilst I was there I had the chance to talk to the CEO via telephone, I can easily say the guy was very lax.
It's true there are some very lax boss', but at the same time there are some who have a terrible attitude towards their workforce, Team Bondi in Australia is one that springs to mind, so is Robert Kotick.

But let me ask you this, why did you avoid my question over what is fair and what is not?
You're obviously an advocate for fairness so how can you defend business' that take advantage of cheap labor and poor production values at the expense of both the workers and the end consumer.
The games development workplace is an excellent example of pushing the workforce through some very extreme working hours and so is the clothes industry.

[Bodzilla]

Why not just slap a flat ~25% income tax on everyone and call it good?

We do have tax brackets at the moment, but I think that is what all the uproar is about.
lets tax the poor and the middle class.

because they have money to spend.
....
dont they??

oh.... well that was a stupid idea wasnt it.

read this, by warren buffett, arguably the most successfull investment broker... ever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

[Bobblehob]

I did not avoid the question, I already answered it in prior posts. It is not fair to take more money from those who have it, just because they have it. In this case, the business practices are subjective, and really have very little to do with tax rates, which is what this discussion is about. I defend businesses because I understand that the objective of a business is to be profitable, and that using cheaper labor is understandable. In the end it is the decision of the business itself, as to how it operates. If the business chooses to use cheap labor and create low quality products, they will suffer when consumers do not purchase as much.

In short, I defend the ability of a business to operate like a business and to operate, within the confines of the law, as they see fit. If they do so, then the consumer and the market will force the changes upon them that will make them more or less profitable.


lets tax the poor and the middle class.

because they have money to spend.
....
dont they??

oh.... well that was a stupid idea wasnt it.

read this, by warren buffett, arguably the most successfull investment broker... ever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...=3&ref=opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=3&ref=opinion)

Problem is the vast majority of the money he makes in a year is capital gains, and is taxed as such.

[TVTyrant]

This thread is so out of control. I'm sorry guys its mostly my fault.

[dark navi]

lets tax the poor and the middle class.

because they have money to spend.
....
dont they??

oh.... well that was a stupid idea wasnt it.

read this, by warren buffett, arguably the most successfull investment broker... ever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

I'm middle class and I have plenty of money to spend... I don't get how this is a bad idea, but I'll just blame it on TVTyrant.

[Warsaw]

@Bobblehob: I would like to point out that that (consumer choice making businesses better) breaks down when the government is issuing the contracts. Cases in point: U.S. telecoms and ISPs.

[Timo]

It does sound unfair, but lower earners spend the vast majority of their income on living, and higher earners have a much larger disposable income. A flat tax rate puts far more hardship on lower earners than it does on high earners. I enjoy the roads I drive, free health care and the cheap university fees I pay (relative to overseas students), so I really don't mind paying a bit more tax if I end up with a high income when I get out of university.

How the tax rates work in New Zealand:
The first $14,000 - 10.5%
from $14,001 to $48,000 - 17.5%
from $48,001 to $70,000 - 30%
$70,001 and over - 33%

A couple of of extra percent are added for ACC (health cover), and all goods and service are taxed at 15%.


An on topic: There's been a bunch of fliers been stuck up around uni telling me i'm part of the 99%, which is pretty funny considering the 99% issue really doesn't exist here :o

[Bobblehob]

@Bobblehob: I would like to point out that that (consumer choice making businesses better) breaks down when the government is issuing the contracts. Cases in point: U.S. telecoms and ISPs.

That is true, government and Business are two things that do not go together well, whether it be government contracts, or regulations.

[TVTyrant]

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.
Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren E. Buffett



And folks this is what happens when our system breaks down.

And go fuck yourself Dark Navi you haven't even read my posts.

[dark navi]

And go fuck yourself Dark Navi you haven't even read my posts.

Nah, I only read the post above my last where you blamed yourself. :allears:

[jcap]

Are you that thick headed? Why do you take more money just because they have it? Why do you think that is fair!? They earned that money, and they deserve to keep it. If they want to give away more of it, like thehoodedsmack said, that is perfectly fine, but forcing them to do it is WRONG.
So it's more fair/right to take money from those who don't have it?

If you make $25,000/yr and you owe 25% of that in taxes, that means that you are left with only $20,000. The extra $5000 you have to pay in taxes can go a really long way for a low income family, especially if you can hardly live on your meager hourly wage. Don't forget you still need to pay for utilities and property taxes.

[dark navi]

So it's more fair/right to take money from those who don't have it?

If you make $25,000/yr and you owe 25% of that in taxes, that means that you are left with only $20,000. The extra $5000 you have to pay in taxes can go a really long way for a low income family, especially if you can hardly live on your meager hourly wage. Don't forget you still need to pay for utilities and property taxes.

Very fair statement. Hmm... You'd think that the people we jump through hoops to get into office would be able to come up with some sort of system that benefits most.

Obviously there is no solution that benefits everyone.

[jcap]

That's why they propose a sliding scale for taxable income. If you reduce the taxes for the poor, you need to make up the difference somewhere...so you increase the taxes for those who actually have money after all their living expenses and investing.

[Bobblehob]

So it's more fair/right to take money from those who don't have it?

If you make $25,000/yr and you owe 25% of that in taxes, that means that you are left with only $20,000. The extra $5000 you have to pay in taxes can go a really long way for a low income family, especially if you can hardly live on your meager hourly wage. Don't forget you still need to pay for utilities and property taxes.

Except that is not true, according to the IRS: Those making 1 million dollars a year, on average, pay 24% of their income in taxes, Those making $200-$300,000 a year pay 17.5% on average, those paying $100-$125,000 pay 9.9%, those who make $50-$60,000 pay an average of 6.3% and those making $20-$30,000 a year pay an average of 2.5 percent of their income in taxes.

And if you know what you are doing as a low income earner, especially in the 20-30,000 a year range, you can get deductions that allow you to pay absolutely nothing.

[TVTyrant]

Linky or bs.

[Bobblehob]

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Averages are taken from these tables, supplied by the IRS from 1999-2008, granted it isn't current up to this year, but it is safe to say that rates have changed very little.

Edit:
http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

Here is a 2010 table.

[king_nothing_]

Ah, yes, now we get to the condescending responses, I am 19, I do have a job, and I am not an idiot, So don't talk to me like I am one.


To be quite honest with you, I don't make much money. I don't feel jealousy towards those people, I don't pretend to know just how much work they do or do not have to do, and how much responsibility any of them has on their shoulders as compared to the little I have in my low paying job. You are also making a massive generalization about how the workforce is treated by their employers. I had the privilege of meeting the CEO of the company I work for on Friday of this past week. I am not treated badly, they do not take money from me, in-fact I make more than most people with similar jobs to mine. You cannot say that the majority or even the minority of these people exploit their workforce.
Thank you. Seriously, thank you. It's nice to see someone in here besides me who doesn't petition the government to steal from their fellow human beings for them because they want more. It's nice to see at least one person who doesn't make this quote ring pathetically true:

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat

Also:

"If you would not confront your neighbor and demand his money at the point of a gun to solve every new problem that may appear in your life, you should not allow the government to do it for you." - William E. Simon

It's nice to see someone else who wholly accepts responsibility for themselves, and doesn't let their personal desire to better their own plight compromise their morality.

How about we just call income tax what it is: theft. Theft is the taking of someone's property without their permission. Why do people assume it instantly becomes something other than that when the government, those who have a monopoly on the use of force, are doing it? There are certain laws, natural laws, which do not come from government legislation, but from our humanity. Murder is wrong regardless of whether or not it is illegal under government legislation. So is theft. This idea that positive law supersedes natural law is sickening. If a psychopathic leader commits mass murder of innocent people, is it alright as long as it's legal under government legislation? I would hope not. Why then, is theft considered alright if it's "legal" for the government to commit due to government law? The "good intentions" explanation does not suffice; the ends do not justify the means. If I walked up to you and demanded half of your income, promising my best promise that I will use all the money to provide "beneficial public works" or feed hungry people, would I be justified in doing so, and would you allow me to take it?

The response "but that is unrealistic" does not suffice, either. If the federal government wasn't the monstrosity it currently is, it would be possible to run without an income tax and with simply tariffs and/or excise taxes. We did not have an income tax for most of our history before 1913. If the government was small enough to fit within the confines of the Constitution, it would certainly be possible to fund it without income tax. The government is too fucking big. This is not what was intended.

"Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions." - Milton Friedman

"It is not in the power of the government to make everybody more prosperous." - Ludwig von Mises

Read that one closely. Government does not create prosperity. It cannot.

[jcap]

Except that is not true, according to the IRS: Those making 1 million dollars a year, on average, pay 24% of their income in taxes, Those making $200-$300,000 a year pay 17.5% on average, those paying $100-$125,000 pay 9.9%, those who make $50-$60,000 pay an average of 6.3% and those making $20-$30,000 a year pay an average of 2.5 percent of their income in taxes.

And if you know what you are doing as a low income earner, especially in the 20-30,000 a year range, you can get deductions that allow you to pay absolutely nothing.
Yes, we currently do have a sliding scale. I was replying to:

Why not just slap a flat ~25% income tax on everyone and call it good?

[Bodzilla]

And folks this is what happens when our system breaks down.

And go fuck yourself Dark Navi you haven't even read my posts.
this needs to be quoted because alot of people seem to just ignore it.

[Bobblehob]

this needs to be quoted because alot of people seem to just ignore it.

Oh yeah, btw, Warren Buffett is a massive hypocrite. He claims he pays 17% income tax, when he is actually paying taxes on money that has already been taxed as income once, and is now only being taxed as capital gains, on which the rate is much lower.

[jcap]

Oh yeah, btw, Warren Buffett is a massive hypocrite. He claims he pays 17% income tax, when he is actually paying taxes on money that has already been taxed as income once, and is now only being taxed as capital gains, on which the rate is much lower.
Yeah, Warren Buffet is a fucking cunt. Absolute scum of the earth bastard ass motherfucker. He preaches shit because it doesn't affect him.

[TVTyrant]

Yeah, Warren Buffet is a fucking cunt. Absolute scum of the earth bastard ass motherfucker. He preaches shit because it doesn't affect him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb8fWUUXeKM

Posted because I sounded like this when I read JCap's post. In a very, very good way.

[Bobblehob]

Sounds like someone is mad ;)

[king_nothing_]

Free cookies for anyone who takes the time to read this. It's worth it.



The Paradox of the Outraged (http://mises.org/daily/5762/The-Paradox-of-the-Outraged)

Mises Daily: Monday, October 17, 2011 by Axel Kaiser (http://mises.org/daily/author/1677/Axel-Kaiser)

A wave of social upheaval is shaking the world. In the West, the press has called the protesters "the outraged." The name is taken from the pamphlet Time for Outrage! (Indignez-vous!) by French intellectual Stéphane Hessel. The outrage by the political and economic situation in the Western world is justified. In Europe and the United States, the gap between financial elites and the rest has widened, while politicians have become a sort of modern nobility completely detached from the realities of the ordinary man. Democracies have failed to guarantee fair play among the different social actors, thus endangering their own existence.



The perception that something is fundamentally wrong in Western societies explains why Hessel has sold millions of copies of his brief and provocative pamphlet, triggering social movements in France and Spain. It also explains the emergence of Occupy Wall Street in the United States, a movement that officially declares itself to be inspired by the Spanish acampadas ("camper-protestors"). The galvanization effect of Hessel's pamphlet has reminded us that intellectuals and opinion leaders, as Karl Popper insisted, have to be particularly careful and responsible with the ideas they proliferate. One should never forget Isaiah Berlin's warning that "when ideas are neglected by those who ought to attend to them — that is to say, those who have been trained to think critically about ideas — they sometimes acquire an unchecked momentum and an irresistible power over multitudes of men that may grow too violent to be affected by rational criticism."[1] (http://mises.org/daily/5762/The-Paradox-of-the-Outraged#note1)This is a lesson of the history of Marxism and National Socialism that we cannot forget.



Dangerously, Hessel has failed to recognize that he is endorsing the same attitude that ended up in Nazism and Communism: collectivism. Indeed, both National Socialism and socialism were derived from a rejection of the individualistic philosophy that laid the foundations of Western civilization.


Individualism means, in this context, that each person is considered unique, an end in himself as Kant would say, and must therefore be free to pursue his own goals. Accordingly, he is free insofar as he is not coerced by others to pursue alien ends. Liberty is thus, as John Locke famously put it, "to be free from restraint and violence from others."[2] (http://mises.org/daily/5762/The-Paradox-of-the-Outraged#note2) This idea of freedom as the absence of coercion is the cornerstone of any prosperous and open society. Only where individuals are free to pursue their own ends by making the best possible use of the knowledge they possess can a civilized order of voluntary and peaceful cooperation exist. And only where coercion has been replaced by the voluntary arrangements of individuals can progress flourish. It is not an accident that the greatest achievements in history have been the product of freedom to pursue individual ends: no opera or major technological invention has ever been created under coercion.



The idea that men have to enjoy the freedom necessary to pursue their own ends is exactly what collectivism rejects. For the collectivist mind, individual interest has to be subordinated to the abstraction of the common good. Hessel's call for "a rational economic order in which the individual interest is subordinated to the general interest" perfectly summarizes the collectivist attitude. Once this idea is accepted there is no limit to government intervention. From then on, government can force individuals to follow predetermined courses of action, which are not their own, under the pretext of serving the common good, thereby undermining freedom and progress.


The Fiction of Government


The tragedy of honest left-wing intellectuals who encourage movements such as Occupy Wall Street is that, without realizing it, they are outraged by what is to a large extent the creature of their own thinking. The best example is Hessel himself. He argues that fundamental principles of a free, humanitarian, and democratic society have been replaced by a system in which maximization and uncontrolled financial capitalism prevail. A much better world, he insists, would be one in which individual interest is subordinated to the general interest. This can be best achieved if government plays a larger role in the economy.

One should first ask if there is any reason to believe that government really cares about the common good. Are bureaucrats and politicians not people like everyone else? Was Lord Acton wrong when he said that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? And if he was right, is it reasonable to think that those who are in power — and therefore already corrupted — would put their own interest aside in order to serve an abstract ideal called the "common good"?


Even Hessel denounces that lobbyists have overtaken government in "the highest spheres." Nevertheless, he seems to believe that if government were to have more control over industries, corruption would not do its harmful work. In other words, for Hessel, if politicians and bureaucrats had more power than they currently have, the system would be less corrupt. History, however, shows that Lord Acton was right: the more power there is in the hands of the rulers the more corrupt the system becomes. The greatest failure of socialism was not that it brought about economic misery to the masses it was supposed to help but that it created a class system more violent and rigid than anything the Western world had ever seen. The central maxim of socialism — namely, equality — was betrayed as soon as the revolutionary leaders consolidated their power over the state. The new elite created a two-class system that rested on systematic coercion: on the one hand there were the party leaders and their friends who lived like kings enjoying all sort of luxuries, many of them imported from the capitalist world; and on the other hand there was everyone else, fighting for survival.

We may still ask what would happen if political leaders were not corruptible. Would Hessel's idea work then? Lets suppose for a minute that James Madison was wrong and that we were indeed governed by angels, that is to say, by incorruptible beings who would use their power only to seek the common good. Lets also suppose that these angels had all the material means necessary to achieve their noble ends. Now the question becomes, is the purity of intentions a guarantee for the quality of the results of someone's actions? Would morally superior and powerful men know better than we do what is best for us? And more importantly, would we be willing to accept honest men or even angels forcing us to do what they think is best?

Here it becomes even more evident that Hessel's argument rests on a falsehood: the idea that the common good or the general interest is something different from the sum of all individual interests, and that government is a separate entity that through coercion can elevate society to a higher degree of moral perfection and happiness. Few ideas in history have proved to be more appealing and at the same time more destructive than this one. Those who, like Hessel, endorse it, ignore the fact that the greatest evils are usually not the result of bad men trying to harm others but of good men trying to help others they do not even know. Henry David Thoreau fully grasped this when he wrote, "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life."[3] (http://mises.org/daily/5762/The-Paradox-of-the-Outraged#note3) If angels were to govern humans, none of us would be spared from death for the greater good.

The fiction that government can safeguard a common good that transcends the diverse and irreducibly complex world of individual interests necessarily entails the idea that it can also provide for our necessities. This fallacy is the origin of the fatal myth of the welfare state — an idea brought about by French rationalist liberalism. This kind of liberalism, as Friedrich von Hayek noted, saw no limits in the power of human reason to plan social life and the economy, becoming thus the predecessor of collectivist movements such as socialism and fascism.

No one understood the implications of this myth better than Frédéric Bastiat, a French intellectual who is barely known in his own country. Writing shortly after the constitution of 1848 was created, Bastiat argued that unlike the Americans, who did not expect anything but from themselves, the French had transferred the province of social construction on to the abstraction of government. It was the responsibility of the state to elevate society to a higher level of morality, happiness, and material well-being. An example of this false belief, according to Bastiat, was to be found in the French constitution of 1848, which declared, "France has constituted itself a republic for the purpose of raising all the citizens to an ever-increasing degree of morality, enlightenment, and well-being." Bastiat observed that this new government was a "chimerical creation from which the citizens may demand everything." For Bastiat this could only lead to endless crisis and revolutions:




I contend that this deification of Government has been in past times, and will be hereafter, a fertile source of calamities and revolutions. There is the public on one side, Government on the other, considered as two distinct beings; the latter bound to bestow upon the former, and the former having the right to claim from the latter, all imaginable human benefits.[4]

(http://mises.org/daily/5762/The-Paradox-of-the-Outraged#note4)

The Causes of the Present Crisis


Bastiat' s words turned out to be prophetic. The myth of the welfare state spread from France and Germany to the rest of the Western world, leading to an explosion of welfare transfers and an equal explosion of the people's expectations with regard to their so-called social rights.

Self-reliance was progressively replaced by a mentality of rights with no duties. As a result, a gigantic disconnect arose between what people are willing to pay in taxes and what they expect in return in the form of government benefits. Because promising welfare is the easiest way to win elections, politicians kept expanding the size of government over the decades. And because the public would not have tolerated an honest increase in taxes to finance the new welfare programs, governments started borrowing the money necessary to finance them. Thus, governments became dangerously in debt. Then the financial crisis came, to a large extent caused by government actions: welfare programs to make true the progressive "homeownership-society" dream in the United States created the structural conditions. Government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought and guaranteed around 50 percent of the total US mortgage market, offered the financial vehicle to transfer the wealth; and the Federal Reserve provided the easy money necessary to finance it. In addition, the US government was borrowing and spending money at an all-time record in order to finance its warfare/welfare policies.


In Europe the situation was not that different. The creation of a single currency, again a government decision that in many cases was not even submitted to popular scrutiny through a referendum, enabled countries like Greece, Portugal, and Spain to borrow money at very low interest. The market rightly assumed that if some of these countries defaulted, Germany and France would rescue them. This explains why private investors considered Greek bonds to be as good as German bonds. Using this unique opportunity, politicians in southern countries started an orgy of credit. Their purpose was to win more elections through the promise of more welfare policies. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank was keeping interest rates artificially low, inflating housing bubbles in Spain and Ireland. For a time everyone was happy: politicians were being reelected, the people were getting new government benefits every year, bankers were making tons of money, and industries were booming. It was all an illusion. When the bubble burst in the United States, it quickly became clear that Europe's economic and fiscal situation was also unsustainable.

Now it's time to pay for the party. Inevitably, this means a dramatic reduction in our standard of living. Because people do not understand that the source of the crisis was government, as Bastiat predicted, they now go on the streets demanding even more of what caused the problem in the first place: government. That is the paradox of the outraged.

Hessel and those who join him show the same ignorance as those who demonstrate against spending cuts when they ask for more welfare programs and more government involvement in the economy. To support his claim, Hessel sustains that it cannot be true that there is not enough money for more government programs because our quality of life is now better than it was fifty years ago. True, there has been much progress brought about by capitalism despite all the problems previously mentioned. But what Hessel does not seem to understand is that it does not matter how rich a country is: if it lives beyond its means it will go bankrupt. That is the exact problem in Europe and the United States. Governments have spent too much money for too long, much more than they could collect in taxes. That is why they have so much debt. There is in fact almost no country in the EU that is respecting the debt limit of the Maastricht treaty, which established a 60 percent–of-GDP limit for public debt and a 3 percent–of-GDP limit for fiscal deficit.

The problem is not that governments do not have enough welfare programs, as Hessel argues, but that they have to many — so many in fact that if they do not start drastically cutting spending even Germany and France will be bankrupted like Greece. The welfare paradigm becomes even more dramatic when the unfunded liabilities are considered, that is, the benefits politicians have promised to pay to their constituencies in order to win elections. In the United States these liabilities are equivalent to seven times GDP, while in the EU they are over four times GDP.[5] (http://mises.org/daily/5762/The-Paradox-of-the-Outraged#note5) There is little doubt that the United States and all European countries will default on their social obligations at some point in the future.

Regarding the "dictatorship" of the financial elites, denounced by Hessel and movements such as Occupy Wall Street, this is again mainly the product of government. We have a banking system that can only work the way it does because it is based on fiat currency and is supported by a central bank — that is to say, a government-created agency of monetary central planning. Central banks provide private banks with liquidity, allowing them to expand the money supply in a coordinated fashion, thereby creating financial and real-estate bubbles. But more importantly, banks take the money given at artificially low interest rates by the central bank and use it to speculate. The dramatic rise in the price of raw materials and agricultural commodities since 2008 is basically the result of the inflation created by central banks. The most perverse consequence of this government-induced inflationary process is that it redistributes wealth from the middle class and the poor to the rich financial elites and governments, for whom inflation works as a hidden tax. John Maynard Keynes, a champion of government intervention, understood this very well. Shortly after the First World War he wrote,



By a continuing process of inflation governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat.[6]

(http://mises.org/daily/5762/The-Paradox-of-the-Outraged#note6)


Those who declare themselves outraged by the unequal distribution of wealth should pay more attention to government-created inflation, for this is by far one of its central causes and the origin of the "money power" they condemn. It is in fact striking that the "outraged" have overlooked the crucial and destructive role central banks play in the world economy. For they not only create money out of thin air (with which financial elites speculate); they also perform the function of the "lender of last resort." This means that whenever a bank has been irresponsibly or poorly managed, instead of allowing its bankruptcy, like any other enterprise in the real economy, the central bank rescues the irresponsible bank with newly printed money. In addition to this perverse incentive, banks work under a fractional-reserve system, which allows them to operate with very low capital reserves, so that their owners have little to lose if the bank goes broke. As a result, bank managers have a powerful incentive to engage in highly speculative activities that are extremely profitable for themselves and stockholders but equally damaging for the ordinary people who end up paying the bill through bailouts and inflation.

None of this can be blamed on the free market. In fact, the free market stands for the complete opposite: open competition among banks; no central monetary planning agency; bankruptcy of those enterprises that have been irresponsibly and poorly managed; hard currency, which ensures the purchasing power of the people's money; and no corrupt collusion between government and economic elites.

Another source of unequal income distribution and poverty is government taxation and regulation. High taxes and excessive regulation hinder productivity and destroy incentives for job creation as well as competition. While rich people can escape the immediate effects of these taxes by taking their money and investing it abroad, the middle class and the poor have to suffer the consequences of fewer jobs, less income, and a lower quality of life. Economic liberty, which also includes the rule of law and solid property rights among others, is thus a necessary condition for improving the very quality of life of the masses that Hessel longs for. It is no coincidence that poor people in the ten countries with more economic liberty have an average income ten times higher than the income of poor people in the ten countries with the lowest degree of economic liberty.


Inequality and Outrage


It has been argued that inflation and the lack of economic liberty are central causes of poverty and inequality. Hessel does not acknowledge this fact, declaring himself outraged by inequality in general. He says it is outrageous that in poor countries people live on less than two dollars a day. Two things have to be said in response to such claims. In the first place, there is a reason to be outraged only when inequality is the result of arbitrary confiscation, fraud of any sort, or bad economic policy. But when inequality is the result of freedom, there is no reason to be outraged at all, especially when everyone has enough. Only envious people can be outraged by the wealth some have legitimately gained. What the people who claim to seek "social justice" fail to understand is that those who have become rich by honest means have served society more than any one else.

Bill Gates for instance, for a long time the richest man in the world, has improved the lives of all of us with his inventions. We have freely decided to buy Microsoft products because they are useful; thus everyone has benefited. In the same manner, when we go to the baker next door and buy some bread, both parties to the transaction are benefiting: the baker because he has money to buy other goods and services he needs for himself and his family, and we who now have delicious bread to eat. It does not make any difference if this baker becomes a millionaire by selling his bread. Actually, it would mean that he is good at his job, so he expands his business in order to satisfy the demand. Why should we be outraged if he becomes rich in the process? We should celebrate the fact that he was prosperous. His prosperity means more jobs and more bread for more people. From every point of view, the millionaire baker is performing a social function. In the same fashion, Bill Gates's inventions increased productivity, bringing millions of people over the poverty line around the world.

Here we come to the second point Hessel makes. It is true that millions of people still live in poverty. What should also be said is that there is no period in history where fewer people — as a percentage of the total population — have lived under such conditions than today. In China alone, more than 300 million people have surpassed the poverty line in the last 30 years. India, Chile, Vietnam, Brazil, Russia, Peru and many other countries have also experienced dramatic reductions of poverty in the last decades. This is due to the free-market policies these countries have implemented, the same policies that explain the economic success of Japan, Europe, and the United States. In absolute terms, people in developing countries are not worse off but better off than before.

Finally, it has to be pointed out that there is nothing wrong with inequality per se. It is much better to have an unequal society where everyone is wealthy than an equal society where everyone is poor. Equality is not and end in itself as Hessel seems to suggest; if it were, we should destroy all our wealth so we would become all equally poor. Some poor African countries have a more equal income distribution than European countries. Does that mean their situation is preferable? The question is thus not how to prevent some people from having much more than others, but how to create the conditions to make everyone wealthier. This is the difference between a society based on true solidarity and freedom and one based on coercion and envy.


Informed Outrage


Hessel is right when he says that outrage is necessary for action and resistance. More important however is to understand the real reasons on which the outrage should be grounded. If people get outraged for the wrong reasons, they will inevitably demand the wrong solutions, making the problem worse. It is especially irresponsible, in these times of social upheaval, to call for outrage and resistance without first a clear examination of what is wrong and how the problem should be approached. This is the role of intellectuals and opinion leaders. If a false message sets in and people believe it, only ruin will come out of outrage. Hessel has done his best, yet the ideology he is promoting, rooted in old collectivist attitudes, can only lead to more serious trouble. He is right to denounce a situation that is indeed outrageous and unsustainable, but he is wrong about everything else.

What we need then is informed outrage. In order to demand the right solutions, people first have to understand how it is we have come so far. They have to be aware that giving more power to governments will only make things worse. The possibility of a better future lies not in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians but on self-reliance, creativity, and individual freedom. It requires courage to be responsible for oneself without expecting endless benefits from government. This is a much more dignified and fruitful path than the current one, and it is also the viable alternative to the present outrageous situation.

[Pooky]

Read the whole thing, thoroughly agreed.

[dark navi]

The article's author seemed very objective in his writing. Nifty read.

[king_nothing_]

Totally have to disagree on the "free market". My big problem with it is this era called the Gilded Age in America, improperly named because the labor of the irishmen and negro lined the pockets of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and JP Morgan to the point where only the most badass president in history (TR) could stop them. The free market is a bucket of shit. It basically says that all the WASPs can spit in the faces of all the other people in this country and we can't do shit about it.
I guess my problem isn't the way economics are run, rather than the people who exploit them. There are some people who very much deserve their wealth. And then their are the corporate fat cats who rape our people for every cent possible, while paying off our government and making the voice of the people worthless.

FUCK RICH PEOPLE. That is all.

Relevant tube is relevant:

m-LJ3wZjD4I

[Limited]

That's why they propose a sliding scale for taxable income. If you reduce the taxes for the poor, you need to make up the difference somewhere...so you increase the taxes for those who actually have money after all their living expenses and investing.
Riddle me this then Jcap. Here in England we do h ave sliding scale for income tax.


£0 - £35,000 = 20%
£35,001 - £150,000 = 40%
Over £150,000 = 50%.

Say I earn £20k a year, I pay £4k on income tax. I ALSO have to pay National Insurance, which is a tax but they dont technically class it as tax - but you have to pay it.

If I earned £150k a year, I would be pretty annoyed because if I earned £1 less, I would be a total of 10% less. Thats £15,000.

Income tax is only one small slice of the tax we have to pay, so right off the bat they charge you 50% - the government don't do have the work...thats even before you see any of the money.

Now National Insurance is a very tricky thing to explain, there are a lot of rates so I'll link you to the website (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm)

So my riddle Jcap, we have what you want - so why are we protesting in St Pauls?

[=sw=warlord]

Whilst people are talking of immoral taxes may I introduce you to this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax)

[Limited]

Whilst people are talking of immoral taxes may I introduce you to this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax)I agree 100%, inheritance tax is THE MOST aggravating and kick in the balls tax ever.

Heres a scenario - My dad has a job, he earns £35,000 (nice round number). He pays income tax on that, 20% gone already, he then has to pay National Insurance, lets guess and say thats around £5k. Thats down to £23,000. Then he passes away and I get some of that money. Note this money has already 'been taxed' twice, I would then have to pay ONTOP of that, and pay this inheritance tax.

So finally I have X amount of money I have inherited, I then decide I want to buy an Xbox, I would then have to pay VAT ontop, which is 20%. So in short, from the time my Dad earns the money, it would get taxed a ton of times before have even spent the money on an item.

So at the one of - if not the most saddest times of your life, when you parent dies. The government want to try and take a lump of that money from you - of which you could have used to pay for a funeral, which I learned the other day costs thousands of pounds/dollars.

The real kicker is the 'tax estate includes any gifts made the by deceased in the seven years before death'. So if my Dad gets hit by a bus and dies, and in any of the seven years leading up to that, he gives me a 'substantial gift' such as money for a deposit for a house, or a car...I have to look back and work that out, and then pay inheritance tax on it.

[sleepy1212]

We do have a sliding scale on taxes in the US. Why is anyone saying we don't?

In fact, that scale applies, not at the end of the year, but by paycheck. If you work construction you may have one pay rate you get hired on at. You pay the normal rate when you get paid at your hire rate. If, however, you get on a project that pays prevailing wage by law (like municipal work) your pay rate will go up temporarily as long as you are on that job. Your tax rate automatically increases with your pay on each check. Sometimes the prevailing wage is high enough that you're really only making a slightly more than you did before simply because of the bracket you would fall in if that was your typical salary.

Here's another fucked up thing in our code: if you make ~$25k or less but more than $8k you're fucked. You'll pay 20% state and federal combined. The kicker here is that you can't save any money (unless you're single/no kids) so you end up spending most of what's left, part of which goes towards sales tax. In the end you'll pay more than a third of your annual salary in taxes. This is the point where I tell people like Sean Hannity to go fuck themselves because the poor DO PAY TAXES and we usually pay a greater share of our salary than the rich do.

Not that I support higher rates for the rich, progressives are idiots. I'd just like to illustrate how we're being robbed everyday.

[=sw=warlord]

It is my opinion if anything is worth protesting over, it is inheritance tax, as Limited pointed out, that tax is immoral in every sense of the word.
There is no other justification other than to drain money from the dead and rob said money from their cold dead hands.

[king_nothing_]

It is my opinion if anything is worth protesting over, it is inheritance tax, as Limited pointed out, that tax is immoral in every sense of the word.
There is no other justification other than to drain money from the dead and rob said money from their cold dead hands.
Of course it's immoral. Why, though, do you only find a tax immoral if it has the possibility of taking from you? As I said earlier (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?23926-Occupy-Wall-Street&p=598525&viewfull=1#post598525), theft is theft, regardless of how it is termed. I'm not a rich person by any possible measure, yet I'm able to admit that taxing rich people's (or anyone's) income is immoral. Why am I largely alone in this admission? Is not being insanely covetous of other people's wealth really such an extreme request?

You can drone on and on about them being evil exploiters who got rich off the backs of good, hard working people, but the fact of the matter is that those workers are not in slavery. They are working there by their own volition, and they are free to quit at any time. If the work agreement between an employer and employee is entirely voluntary on both ends, then there is no rational complaint for you to make. If I want to offer you two dollars an hour to be my gardener, I should have every right to offer that, just as you have every right to not accept the offer.

[Bodzilla]

the most immoral tax in the world is tax's on top of tax's.

look at petrol for instance, it gets taxed at ever stage before it gets to your car, and it's taxed on total cost. therefore your literally getting taxed for tax's.

[EX12693]

Same thing with buying tires in Amurrika. During WWII when rubber was being collected, the gov't put an excise tax on new tires; the total price of the tires+sales tax. They never removed it.

[Warsaw]

It is my opinion if anything is worth protesting over, it is inheritance tax, as Limited pointed out, that tax is immoral in every sense of the word.
There is no other justification other than to drain money from the dead and rob said money from their cold dead hands.

What about property tax? That's just as bad. Taxes should be levied on transactions, not on already-owned items. They already get money out of you for owning a car via the driver's license, which must be renewed.

[jcap]

Property taxes go to the local government to fund public schools, road improvements, police and fire departments, 911 services, public libraries, and more.

Inheritance tax is a load of shit. I can't even believe some people support taxing almost all of inheritance, claiming "you didn't earn it, so why do you care?" I think one thing the republicans in the US did was raise the untaxable limit to an amount ridiculously high for most people...like $5 million or something.

[Warsaw]

Local governments can get their taxes through sales. Don't gimme that property bollocks.

[=sw=warlord]

What about property tax? That's just as bad. Taxes should be levied on transactions, not on already-owned items. They already get money out of you for owning a car via the driver's license, which must be renewed.
Are you comparing property tax to a tax that is inevitable and unavoidable?
One which sole purpose is to take a kick at anyone who ever lived and wanted to give a leaving gift to the people they loved once they pass away?
REALLY??

[Warsaw]

No, I'm not. I'm comparing one bullshit tax to another bullshit tax. It makes no sense to tax ownership, but it makes plenty of sense to tax transactions to gain ownership over something, especially if it's a controlled object like a car or tobacco.

[Kornman00]

The Collapse Of Our Corrupt, Predatory, Pathological Financial System Is Necessary And Positive (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-collapse-our-corrupt-predatory-pathological-financial-system-necessary-and-positive)

[Zeph]

http://www.wcyb.com/news/29693791/detail.html

Now why would people with AUTOMATIC WEAPONS also carry tripods, green screen mats, light kits, and boom mics.....

[king_nothing_]

The Collapse Of Our Corrupt, Predatory, Pathological Financial System Is Necessary And Positive (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-collapse-our-corrupt-predatory-pathological-financial-system-necessary-and-positive)
Good article.

[DarkHalo003]

Down with the Bureaucracy....then when we remake it better....probably not.

[ejburke]

Fractional Reserve Banking is flawed and unstable (in its current form), but it creates money in the system. And if that money were to evaporate back into the ether, it would affect everyone. Home loans, business loans, car loans, school loans -- the means for elevating one's station in life -- would be much harder to be approved for and would carry much higher interest rates.

So, pick your poison, just don't be naive enough to think that there isn't a good reason that the current system should exist in the first place. It's still an ongoing, evolutionary process. Maybe they'll get the kinks worked out; maybe they won't. But they sure as shit didn't have it figured out 100 years ago.

I should qualify that last statement -- the straightforward and intuitive economics of the past (and still used to this day outside of modern banking) are elegant and make sense and tend to be risk-averse. The problem with it is, most of us are risks or we would be perceived that way. A tightened down banking system wouldn't diminish the class disparity, it would reinforce it.

[king_nothing_]

Fractional Reserve Banking is flawed and unstable (in its current form), but it creates money in the system.
That's the whole problem. This entire idea of creating money out of thin air, whether it be from fractional reserve banking or the Federal Reserve pushing a button and creating it, is insane. Simply creating money does not produce wealth. If that were the case, why isn't Zimbabwe the richest country in the world right now (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Zimbabwe_%24100_trillion_2009_Obverse.jpg)?


And if that money were to evaporate back into the ether, it would affect everyone. Home loans, business loans, car loans, school loans -- the means for elevating one's station in life -- would be much harder to be approved for and would carry much higher interest rates.
Not everyone should be able to get a loan for anything they want, and there should sometimes be higher interest rates. Bernanke and Greenspan kept interest rates very low, sparking a "boom" in housing, and look where that got us. Yep, people's "station in life" was temporarily elevated due to those artificially low interest rates...until that Fed-created bubble busted and their equity was wiped out. What does their station in life look like now?

When you artificially set the interest rates like that, it sends false signals to the market and causes distortions. Low interest rates are a signal for more investment. In a free market, interest rates are driven down only when savings have adequately increased. When interest rates are set artificially low by the Fed, the same signal for more investment is sent out, but the problem is the savings aren't actually there. If you allow the interest rates to be set by the market, they would be set correctly and we wouldn't have these problems.

[DarkHalo003]

People were just stupid with their money like they were in the 20s.

[ejburke]

That's the whole problem. This entire idea of creating money out of thin air, whether it be from fractional reserve banking or the Federal Reserve pushing a button and creating it, is insane. Simply creating money does not produce wealth. If that were the case, why isn't Zimbabwe the richest country in the world right now (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Zimbabwe_%24100_trillion_2009_Obverse.jpg)?Actuall y, creating money does increase wealth. At least, it can. That's the whole point of doing it.

The true problem is that this money multiplier effect intertwines the fates of banks. One foolish bank can bring down dozens of responsible ones, destroying a lot of money AND wealth in the process. "Too big to fail" and all that.

Zimbabwe? Man, if I was an alien and judged the human race based on shit going down in Africa, I would probably press the nuke button around the 1000th time I saw some dude cut off his neighbor's face prior to raping them.


Not everyone should be able to get a loan for anything they want, and there should sometimes be higher interest rates. Bernanke and Greenspan kept interest rates very low, sparking a "boom" in housing, and look where that got us. Yep, people's "station in life" was temporarily elevated due to those artificially low interest rates...until that Fed-created bubble busted and their equity was wiped out. What does their station in life look like now?

When you artificially set the interest rates like that, it sends false signals to the market and causes distortions. Low interest rates are a signal for more investment. In a free market, interest rates are driven down only when savings have adequately increased. When interest rates are set artificially low by the Fed, the same signal for more investment is sent out, but the problem is the savings aren't actually there. If you allow the interest rates to be set by the market, they would be set correctly and we wouldn't have these problems.

First of all, it was the banks that were hit with the loss in equity. If you were a new homeowner that saw yourself going into negative equity, the answer was easy - default on the loan. Jingle mail your keys to the bank. It's their problem now. Easy come, easy go since you probably didn't put any money down.

I'm not saying everyone should get a house, but I'm not saying no one should get a house. Clearly, they pushed too far toward "everyone", but surely we can do better than "no one". We're trying to find the optimal approach.

People are uncomfortable with the idea that money doesn't really exist, but it's true. The reason we were on the gold standard was because we had to convince millions of rubes to buy into standard currency. We told them that, at any time, they could come on down to the reserve and exchange their notes for actual gold.

The problem is, the amount of gold we can mine from the Earth has nothing to do with the amount of wealth in the world. Increasing wealth without increasing the supply of money is deflationary. You have more stuff -- more lumber for building, more grain for bread, more wool for clothing -- but it's all worth less than it was before, because you still have the same pile of money to spend on it.

Money is and always has been an abstract concept. It is economic fuel and like real fuel, it can be reformulated and supercharged to optimize performance.

Or you can believe there's some kind of economic deity out there who, if you leave it in His hands, will ensure that everything will work out for the best. As long as you throw hot virgins into a volcano.

I can't subscribe to that. I think central banks are a good idea. Controls are a good idea. A flexible supply of money is a good idea. And we wouldn't have made it to the information age to be having this discussion on the magical high-speed internet tubes if not for that economic supercharging getting us here.

I know, "Tortoise vs Hare". But in this case, I'm trusting that the Hare isn't a narcoleptic idiot and I'm betting that the tortoise gets run over at some point. I mean, he's walking in the middle of the road as if there's a force field protecting him. Come on!

[Kornman00]

This is what happens when you trust turtles:

iypBTQYnJi4

[DarkHalo003]

Lol Korn, looked at your comment, then the video, then freaked out Keyes.

[TVTyrant]

Making me laugh in my university's library lol.

[king_nothing_]

Actually, creating money does increase wealth.
This is just an absurd notion. Money creation has nothing to do with real growth of wealth. The idea that steady inflation is needed for economic growth is just wrong. Economic growth comes from an increase of goods and services. If there is an increase of goods and services with no increase of the money supply, the purchasing power of the money simply increases.


The problem is, the amount of gold we can mine from the Earth has nothing to do with the amount of wealth in the world. Increasing wealth without increasing the supply of money is deflationary. You have more stuff -- more lumber for building, more grain for bread, more wool for clothing -- but it's all worth less than it was before, because you still have the same pile of money to spend on it.
Yes, deflation is the great Keynesian boogeyman. We've been told for a long time that deflation is a horrible thing that we must avoid at all costs. Rubbish.

During deflation, prices fall and the purchasing power of the dollar increases. What part of that am I supposed to fear, exactly? You say things are "worth less than they were before, because you still have the same pile of money to spend on them." That doesn't sound exactly correct; numerically yes, their prices have decreased, but their "worth" hasn't necessarily decreased, since the purchasing power of the dollar has increased. Falling prices doesn't mean wealth is just magically disappearing.

If monetary inflation causes the price of something to increase by 1000% over time, does that mean it's worth has increased by 1000%? Of course not. You have to adjust for inflation and take into account the purchasing power of the dollar at those different points in time to determine how much the actual worth of the thing has changed, if at all.

The usual criticism of falling prices and increased purchasing power is that people are incited to spend less and save more, and this will ultimately result in economic slowdown and catastrophe. What that overlooks though is that people don't save for nothing. They save with the intent of spending in the future. Also, saving is what provides the capital base for future growth. On the flip side, perpetual inflation which incites people to spend more in the present and save less results in less capital available.

Think of it -- a system in which saving money for the future is actually beneficial. A system in which average everyday people aren't forced into becoming speculators in order to not lose wealth. What a novel idea.

There was price deflation during the Industrial Revolution. Did we go into a deflationary spiral of economic death then? No, we saw the greatest economic growth in history.

Look at a specific market -- technology. Prices are always steadily falling. According to Keynesian price deflation scaremongering, that should result in less consumer spending and economic slowdown in that sector. But no, that sector sees amazing growth.

[cheezdue]

The usual criticism of falling prices and increased purchasing power is that people are incited to spend less and save more, and this will ultimately result in economic slowdown and catastrophe. What that overlooks though is that people don't save for nothing. They save with the intent of spending in the future. Also, saving is what provides the capital base for future growth. On the flip side, perpetual inflation which incites people to spend more in the present and save less results in less capital available.




Deflation could still cause an economic failure. Just like you mentioned above, people will continually save their money if prices kept going lower and lower because they know that it will become super affordable in the future. But what happens is a decrease in circulating money because consumers are holding on to their money for
cheaper prices.

Just my two little scents.

[king_nothing_]

There have been plenty of examples of price deflation which produced positive and not negative results. Is the computer industry suffering due to steadily falling prices of personal computers? The price of the average computer five years from now will very likely be cheaper than the average computer today. Is that resulting in a suffering computer industry presently? No. People know full well that the technology they buy today will be more affordable in the future, yet they still buy it today in massive amounts.

[king_nothing_]

Aside from the economic theory of it all, am I the only one who also looks at this from an ethical viewpoint? The fact that holding on to your own money results in your wealth being confiscated by a hidden inflation tax is just sick. If I want to save my own money, I should have the ability to do that without my wealth being siphoned away by intentional government inflation. Even if their theory was correct (I still contend that it isn't), it's still ethically atrocious. Hard money is the only sensible type of money because it's the only type that can't be manipulated, which is why governments want nothing to do with it. A monopoly on force isn't enough; they want a monopoly on money as well. Legal tender laws are despotic. We're forced to conduct transactions in a currency that the government continually and intentionally siphons wealth out of. I would love to watch how quickly the USD would be abandoned if those laws were repealed.

[TVTyrant]

We don't have anything to do with Gold/Silver now because when we tried to do it right, the people who owed us tried to fuck us. So we abolished it to fuck the world in the ass. I agree though that a free floating currency system is idiotic, but we're beyond that point now. We can't go back.

[ejburke]

This is just an absurd notion. Money creation has nothing to do with real growth of wealth. The idea that steady inflation is needed for economic growth is just wrong. Economic growth comes from an increase of goods and services. If there is an increase of goods and services with no increase of the money supply, the purchasing power of the money simply increases.

Let's say someone deposits $1000 in a bank. The bank keeps 10% in reserve and lends $900 to a businessman. The businessman needs a place to keep his money, so he deposits it in the bank. They set aside 10% and lend $810 to another businessman, who in turn deposits it in the bank.

In that example, money has been created, but wealth has not. Not yet. If the business ventures are successful, however, and goods and services have been generated to repay the loan, plus whatever interest, plus the profit that the businessman keeps for himself, then yes, wealth HAS been created. $1000 "real" dollars were successfully leveraged into several thousand that would have otherwise been unavailable.

Now, if the businessmen default on their loans, we have a major problem. But it very clearly illustrates my point that creating money can (but not necessarily does) generate wealth. That's why we do it and that's why we'll keep doing it.

I'm not here to argue inflation/deflation theory. My point was that ideally the money supply should increase proportionately with an increase in wealth -- that is neither inflationary nor deflationary.

Let's say there's a farmer growing apples and he bought more land to grow more crops. Supply and demand will lower the price he can charge for each apple, naturally. But what isn't so natural is that with a fixed money supply and deflation, the farmer isn't the guy that got monetarily wealthier in this scenario.

He's wealthier in the sense that he can keep those apples and live off them if he has to or barter them, but if he decides to sell them for money, the guy who truly got wealthier is the rich guy on the hill with the Scrooge McDuck money bin. Since each dollar's buying power just increased and he's the one with the most dollars, he benefited the most from the farmer's initiative. He just got wealthier without lifting a finger or taking a risk. That does not seem "correct" to me.

There are a lot of reasons prices fall. Most of them are natural. I'm talking strictly about the stagnant money supply issue. The tech boom and industrial revolution are clear examples of supply and demand at work, not deflation.

It's important to appreciate just how many IQ points we have devoted to this problem. We didn't get here overnight or on a whim. It was a long series of solutions to problems and hopefully, we keep solving problems until we have it all worked out.

I respect your right to roost in your radical ivory tower, though.

[king_nothing_]

Notice I said it has nothing to do with real growth of wealth (as in real economic growth). I'm quite aware that they can create artificial, temporary economic booms. Those booms always go bust though, and the economy ends up worse off than it would have otherwise been, and causes a piling on of massive amounts of debt.

Is it any wonder why we have a debt crisis? This entire economic system we have and that you're espousing is founded upon debt. Someone has to go in debt in order for the money to be created. The debt grows in parallel with the growth of the money supply. They have to create more debt just to keep the whole system from collapsing. The whole thing is unsustainable and is going to collapse anyway, just in a different manner.

[ejburke]

No, they are very real gains and no, they do not always bust. Come on. You can't think everyone else is THAT stupid, can you? You can disagree with the choices made, but you have to be able to acknowledge that there are some truly clever concepts in our modern financial system. The proof that they CAN work is literally all around you.

Like I said before, the busts only happen when money is "created" and invested poorly on a massive scale. The mortgage crisis would have been avoided if investors knew when to quit buying MBS's. It was not an inevitable consequence.

I am not "espousing" anything. I am simply trying to round out this fairly flimsy discussion. People tend to take 5 seconds to decide whether something is stupid or not and would rather assume that they're the only intelligent being on the planet, rather than take the time to see the big picture of pros and cons.

Answers don't seem as crystal clear when you do that, though. If you want to know my thoughts, I'm scared shitless, but I think that if we figure out anything in the next century, it will be this.

I probably used to think more conservatively about money. I was uneasy when I learned about how banks and the stock market actually worked. It struck me as untenable.

But now, I think it can work. It is not such a crazy notion for money to be divorced from its corresponding wealth. Debt is just one side of the ledger and it doesn't spook me on its own. I can easily imagine a future where finance is handled perfectly and optimally by computers.

What scares me about your ideas is that there's not going to be money available to accomplish anything. The best, safest way to make money will be to hoard a big pile of it and just sit on it. Live off the deflation, rather than the interest. More and more of the money supply would be sitting idly until growth halts, causing deflation to halt, allowing the money to ever so gently trickle back into the economy until the cycle starts all over again. Meanwhile, everyone is dead.

EDIT: I take that back. I'm actually NOT scared of your ideas, because I know that they will never be taken seriously as a course of action. Err, no offense.

[king_nothing_]

Oh, there is indeed some cleverness involved. It certainly takes some cleverness to devise a monetary system backed by nothing, with no intrinsic value, based entirely on the accumulation of debt, and get the world to put their faith in it. It takes some other attributes as well which need not be mentioned.

And yes, you are espousing exactly what I just claimed you are espousing. The system which you support is based on debt, and needs a never-ending accumulation of it in order to continue. You can't get around that.

The idle resources argument is fallacious. The fact that someone's money is sitting "idly" simply means he is waiting for a future point to put it to use which he deems to be a more efficient use. It's better for it to remain idle for a time than for it to be misused. When you force people to spend and speculate with their money by the use of perpetual inflation, much of it will inevitably be used inefficiently and be misallocated. That builds bubbles. Without that inflationary coercion, the resources would be used more efficiently. That's the problem with the "spend spend spend" Keynesian mantra -- they couldn't care less where the spending goes, as long as it's going. They view capital goods as being homogeneous. It's no wonder why we suffer from a perpetual cycle of bubbles and busts.

You massively overstate the effects of "hoarding". Nobody is going to get very rich by doing it, nor would it be the best way to make money. Let's assume for a minute that such a system was in place during a 40 year period in which the economy grew at the same rate it has grown in the real world in the past 40 years. GDP (inflation-adjusted) has tripled in that time. So if someone sat on their money for 40 years, it would have tripled in value. That's about 2.8% growth per year. That's not anywhere close to being the best way to make money. People will still be putting money at risk in droves looking for a better return. But, it provides people who have no speculation skill or inclination with the choice of abstaining from it without losing what they've rightfully earned. There's nothing wrong with that. Joe Sixpack and granny shouldn't be forced into speculating with their money if they have no understanding of it or desire to do so. When you aren't forcing that to happen in greater amounts than it normally would, the process is more efficient.

That is even assuming that the the money supply would be exactly constant, which of course wouldn't be the case with a commodity-backed currency.

[TVTyrant]

Portland Police are currently removing protestors because theyve totally trashed downtown portland. People are resisting hilariously. I am actually proud of our local police forces since they haven't used unnecessary force the way the NYPD appears to have done.

[DarkHalo003]

At this point, I'm alright with protesters who aren't doing anything fruitful being outright ripped from the street.

[TPBlinD]

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lunl8uQEZc1qbdxgao1_500.png

[=sw=warlord]

Scores arrested as police clear NYC Occupy camp
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45299622/ns/us_news-life/#.TsJl18Mr2so (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45299622/ns/us_news-life/#.TsJl18Mr2so)

[JackalStomper]

http://i.imgur.com/2TTYB.png
http://i.imgur.com/CS68c.jpg

[Warsaw]

Whelp. (http://news.yahoo.com/millionaires-capitol-hill-please-tax-more-222330131.html)


WASHINGTON (AP) — Lobbyists for a day, a band of millionaires stormed Capitol Hill on Wednesday to urge Congress to tax them more.They had a little trouble getting in. It turns out there are procedures, even for the really rich.

[paladin]

http://i.imgur.com/CS68c.jpg

This is glorious

This shit is still going on?

[Timo]

Pretty intense, the UC Davis Chancellor getting a walk of shame because she authorised riot police to evict students from campus, resulting in a bunch of them getting pepper sprayed.
8775ZmNGFY8

[Bodzilla]

thats incredibly powerful.

woah.

[Kornman00]

The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy)

[n00b1n8R]

well fuck :tinfoil:

[Ryx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rbXfelyIoM

[Kornman00]

Anonymous hacks cops coordinating Occupy evictions – PERF goes down (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20111126070602834)

The gov't isn't the only one with aces up its sleeves

[=sw=warlord]

Anonymous hacks cops coordinating Occupy evictions – PERF goes down (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20111126070602834)

The gov't isn't the only one with aces up its sleeves
Heh, Words cannot describe my amusement at this.

[TVTyrant]

I didn't get the knee on the throat thing. It was on the side of his neck, which is a proper disabling move to give yourself leverage while restraining someone. Learn to wrestle/grapple.

[Rainbow Dash]

UhbcNDY-3Zs

wYLtjdANYiw

Footage of the events leading up to the protestors being pepper sprayed outside the Montreal stock exchange. I was really hoping that I could have some ounce of pride thinking that there's no way our police could be as terrible as the ones in the USA, but I guess that was just wishful thinking.

I particularly like the part with the indistinct but loud broadcast voice that sounded eerily reminiscent of the one from HL2.