Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
walker

Tax the 1%ers and banks to pay for austerity?

Should the 1%ers and the banks be taxed to pay for austerity  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the 1%ers and the banks be taxed to pay for austerity

    • Yes Tax the 1%ers and the banks to pay for austerity
      44
    • No Do not tax the 1%ers and the banks to pay for austerity
      19


Recommended Posts

But the Unions are part of the problem Walker, they demand higher wages for civil servants at a time when everyone is having their wages cut. And they are going on strike about it. Now whos greedy? not just the banker, but the civil servants too. Maybe you should read into the civil servant system in the UK, you might actually learn something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dan;2063053']But the Unions are part of the problem Walker' date=' they demand higher wages for civil servants at a time when everyone is having their wages cut. And they are going on strike about it. Now whos greedy? not just the banker, but the civil servants too. [/quote']

But the reason they are having wages cut is becuase of measures based on the banking systems and the domino effect of those above, so why shouldn't they strike, and how is that equally greedy?

Why shouldn't people in that sector (taking allot of shit for less) ask for more or at least not want things cut more? How can you be equally greedy to do so? Compared with 1 percenters its comic book greed. How is it part of the problem when its a inevitable knock on effect of the problem.

Yet another example of everyone finger pointing to the nearest group then all the way to the top.

You want to point fingers about greed, look at war machine, record fuel cost profits and record profits of monopolising supermarkets, bonuses, and the rest waaaay before civil servants having to defend their situations.

Spend some time look at the world and looking what gets mega funding at the time of "everyone having wages cut" ... get at them first I would say. Money can be found when needed even now, but dont worry keep in-fighting about it.

What your seeing is the economy being the device to rip and question everyone apart, which is still smoke and mirrors about the real problem above. The funny part is before this economy problem came to light, no one gave a shit of the info they now point for point rake up about anything "greedy". Or what I now see as the economic moral high ground (which clearly works in levels of perception and wage bracket so its never right).

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UK Civil Servants are not having their wages cut. The strike is about pensions and the Unions are upset that civil service pensions are being 'reduced' (cough) from unbelievably generous to just ridiculously generous. It's an aim to bring some sort of equality to the 2 tier system that exists between the public and private sectors. Most people in the private sector do not have any of the benefits and entitlements that the public sector have. That inequality cannot continue. This is nothing to do with the 1%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is nothing to do with the 1%.
So its off topic then right :)
It's an aim to bring some sort of equality to the 2 tier system that exists between the public and private sectors. Most people in the private sector do not have any of the benefits and entitlements that the public sector have. That inequality cannot continue.
And thats a mini argument in the large picture, in fact if you actually remove the economy issues and remove the question in this thread, its actually nothing to do with this thread & basicly Euro politics thread.

I agree I wasnt too specific about that subject on what the strike is for, but that said it was in response to this thing about "greed slander" used on anything now when the REAL greed seems to be a subject to stay away from or is somehow oddly defended or shrouded in political red tape debate.

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

In reply to PELHAM

Well that is interesting minuscule side issue of the fact that they have contracts with their employers where part of their remuneration package includes lower wages than the equivalent job in the private sector while getting better pensions and job security. If you really do believe in capitalism PELHAM I fail to see what your problem is. They are contractors selling their services, the person at the other end of the contract (the government) is trying to fiddle them out of their agreed remuneration package and renege on its contract. They are holding the government to its contract.

Anyway back to the topic of the thread.

Trillions have been defrauded from honest tax payers by tax scroungers who pay vast amounts of money to support members of the current administrations round the world.

Over 15 billion is being defrauded from UK tax payers by tax scroungers every year, many of the worst culprits are investment banks and bankers or so called top UK companies and their boards. Vodaphone is said to owe more than 6 billion this year alone, Sir Philip Green owes £300 million on his own.

Tax Havens account for an estimated loss of 18 Billion pounds per year.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/TaxHavenCostTRLLP.pdf

It is clear that the current UK administration is failing to deal with rampant tax crime. No wonder the police and courts are looking into these dodgy deals:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/judge-to-examine-goldman-sachs-tax-deal-6265835.html

Tax Scroungers are clearly the biggest issue facing the UK economy, similar levels of fraud exist in the US and round the world. Is it time to lock em up and throw away the key?

Once again I ask a simple question why should the 1%ers, bankers and Wall Street Welfare Queens get let off austerity?

Kind Regards walker

Edited by walker
damn predictive text! Added sources

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again I ask a simple question why should the 1%ers, bankers and Wall Street Welfare Queens get let off austerity?

As I said earlier in this thread:

Austerity means cuts to government spending, and this has the potential to affect everyone, bankers included. What you're asking for is massive (and frankly ridiculous) tax hikes on the sector of the tax base that already pays more in taxes than everyone else.

No one is arguing that the 1%, bankers, et al. should be allowed to "skip austerity" as you've suggested. They should have to deal with the consequences of government spending cuts along with everyone else. But that's not what you want. You want massive tax hikes on the wealthiest 1% that would take the place of actual austerity (i.e., cutting government spending), in essence allowing everyone except the 1% to skip austerity. The problem with this is that even if you straight-up confiscated 100% of the 1%'s wealth, we still would be left with a massive pile of national debt, and now that you've destroyed so many entrepreneurs, extreme unemployment. Government spending needs to be drastically cut if we ever want to get out of debt. There is no feasible way to make up all or even most of the difference through increased tax revenue; the debt is simply too massive.

Of course, government spending never gets drastically cut, so we'll ultimately just inflate ourselves out of debt as necessary. When this happens and the value of fiat currencies worldwide begins to rapidly evaporate, I doubt you'll be preaching about your fantasy "fiat gold bubble."

Edited by ST_Dux
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capitalism doesn't need to be fixed, it needs to be implemented properly. This regulated mixed economy bullshit we have right now is responsible for our problems.

Markets, as any other human invention/creation, can fail. And believe me, it happens that i know financial markets quite well, they are failing. What can be done then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ProfTournesol:

Your post just now about markets and the possibility of their failure reminded me of a post you made a while ago that I meant to respond to. I hope you all don't mind me bringing up an old reply, but I think it's pertinent to the current discussion at hand.

Yep, i know this neoclassical theory by heart. Markets are failing because the State (or something else) is intervening providing them from reaching their equilibrium. Without state intervention, it would be the Nirvana.

Actually, neoclassical theory does not posit this. In neoclassical theory, there are several scenarios in which government intervention is deemed necessary or at least preferable, e.g., monopoly.

However perfect competition (ie complying with its hypothesis, such as infinite buyers and sellers, perfect factor mobility, perfect information, perfect factor mobility etc.) was never observed apart from some very limited cases (such as exchange or free software markets for example).

This is an excellent point and one of the main reasons why I don't follow neoclassical theory or believe all of its conclusions. The neoclassical model is useful as a classroom model and is a good place to start learning about economics, but as you've pointed out, the neoclassical model assumes that the economy is essentially static. It looks at snapshots in time and does not take into account the fact that the economy is a dynamic entity which is constantly changing; thus, it is an inadequate model for fully understanding how an economy functions.

The problem is that real life isn't a laboratory. If pure market competition is never observed, it's a myth. Such as Communism. Moreover, the very strong hypothesis that free markets equilibrium will naturally ensure society Nirvana (ie Pareto-efficient for the whole society) cannot be proven outside of the mythical general equilibrium, so it's at best a wishful thinking, or a simplified teaching tool to caricaturize and simplify economic mechanisms for students.

Real life economy isn't made of (perfect) equations, but of (imperfect) people. Thinking that pursueing individual selfish objectives may lead to a collective happiness is such a fairy tale that i'm still amazed people still believe in it (well, some people believe in scientology so...everything may happen)

I fully agree with your assertion that real life isn't a laboratory made up of perfect equations, and that is exactly why I am in favor of the free market. As you accurately pointed out, the real economy is made up of imperfect and individually unpredictable people. These people have various wants and desires and make innumerable economic decisions on a daily basis for innumerable reasons. To put it bluntly, there are simply far too many constantly changing variables in the real world economy for any human-made model, regardless of complexity, to be adequate.

We cannot know how an economy ought to be directed or what will lead to collective happiness; the very concept of "collective happiness" becomes unfathomable once we consider the fact that happiness is a relative term; one man's happiness may very well be another man's misery, and it is impossible to predict with any degree of certainty what will make every man content. The only person whose desires we might say are clear to us is ourself, and it is from this fact that the free market was born. Rather than embark upon a futile attempt to create a model of society that somehow produces collective happiness in a world where happiness is relative, we are empowered through the free market to allow happiness to be created by each individual for himself. Economic decisions in the free market are made by the many, not the few; they are spontaneous and dynamic, beyond our understanding, yet they can arise without our full knowledge because there is no need for central control. Does this lead to Nirvana? Certainly not -- there is no utopia -- but it does lead to freedom, and freedom is what allows men to work with one another to attain mutual benefit and achieve triumphs far greater than anything possible individually.

To cut it short, freedom : yes, of course, but not without any regulation.

There is no freedom without regulation. As I believe you've said previously, "freedom of the jungle is not freedom at all." The question isn't whether or not there should be some form of regulation; the question is which regulations are conducive to freedom? To answer that question, we first need to understand what it is we mean by the word "freedom."

The trick with coming up with a definition for freedom is that we must be careful not to contradict ourselves. The broader our definition becomes, the higher the risk of self-contradiction. For example, if we were to define freedom as "freedom from violence and coercion from others; freedom from aggression" and stop right there, we would have no contradiction. If everyone in our society were to agree to and abide by this regulation, our ability to cooperate with one another would be vastly increased and we could safely claim that our freedom had been enhanced. However, consider what happens when we add something that appears perfectly agreeable to our definition: "freedom to earn a living wage" (think minimum wage laws). What happens if no employer exists that is willing to pay a particular employee enough to be considered a "living wage"? Do we rescind our promise of "freedom to earn a living wage" to the employee, or do we force the employer to pay him a living wage, thereby rescinding our promise of "freedom from coercion" to the employer? There is a clear self-contradiction in play here as we cannot guarantee our new freedom ("freedom to earn a living wage") without at the same time revoking our guarantee on our original freedom ("freedom from violence and coercion").

Of course, reality is not as simple as the above thought experiment, and there is no perfectly free society (after all, you need to fund the state that enforces the laws, and that requires taxation in some form or another), but I believe it highlights the fact that our definition of freedom must be kept to simple and consistent principles if we wish to maintain it. Chief among these is the non-aggression principle outlined above; it is the essence of freedom and the starting point of law, and I strongly believe that the less it is contradicted the freer we all are. For this reason, I fully support market regulations barring theft, fraud and the like -- these regulations logically follow from the non-aggression principle -- but I oppose everything else, including things that the neoclassicals support such as antitrust law. Essentially, if what you're doing isn't diminishing the rights of anyone else (i.e., if your actions are in no way coercive), then in a free society, it should be allowed. If the state does not allow it, then it is not fulfilling its original function of limiting coercion but is in fact being coercive itself. It shakes the very foundation upon which it was built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 1%'ers should never have had tax breaks in the first place.

+10000000

I think taxes should be scaled to your income. So, since I am literally paying 27% to Uncle Sam from the jump, so should Ritchie Rich. And on top of other things guys we are taxed several times more on things we buy. So, they are double and triple dipping us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think taxes should be scaled to your income.

They are. The United States has the most progressive income tax system in the world.

Note that there are some mega-corporations, e.g., GE, who have, with the help of an army of accountants, found enough loopholes in the convoluted monstrosity that is the United States tax code to avoid paying what might rightly be considered their fair share, but this is the exception, not the rule. By and large, the wealthy pay far more in taxes than everyone else. The top 5% pay more in taxes than the remaining 95% combined.

Certainly, the loopholes that allow companies like GE to game the system need to be closed, but considering all of the facts, it is a bit daft to suggest that the wealthy as a general group don't pay enough taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all

In reply to PELHAM

Well that is interesting minuscule side issue of the fact that they have contracts with their employers where part of their remuneration package includes lower wages than the equivalent job in the private sector while getting better pensions and job security. If you really do believe in capitalism PELHAM I fail to see what your problem is. They are contractors selling their services, the person at the other end of the contract (the government) is trying to fiddle them out of their agreed remuneration package and renege on its contract. They are holding the government to its contract.

More Walker myths....

State workers earn MORE - not less- than equivalent staff in the private sector

-Difference in pay between private and public is 7.8 per cent

-88% of state workers have company pension compared to 44% of private workers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More Walker myths....

State workers earn MORE - not less- than equivalent staff in the private sector

-Difference in pay between private and public is 7.8 per cent

-88% of state workers have company pension compared to 44% of private workers

Hi all

In Reply to PELHAM Care to prove you statements?

Here are the stats

UK Stats:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-238620

US Stats:

http://www.slge.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B22748FDE-C3B8-4E10-83D0-959386E5C1A4%7D&DE=%7BBD1EB9E6-79DA-42C7-A47E-5D4FA1280C0B%7D

Remember you need comparisons that include the same educational qualification requirements for the job in the private sector as compared to the public sector.

It is a myth that so called conservatives and libertarians round the world often try to fool people with and have been caught faking quite often:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/23/eric-bolling/fox-business-news-eric-bolling-says-wisconsin-teac/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre

But dont worry PELHAM Latter they will all be on strike then nobody has to pay them! They dont do anything important now do they? We will see how that one works for you.

That said you seem very determined to drive the thread off-topic PELHAM as others have also seen so..

Once again back to the subject of the thread:

The level to which the 1%ers, bankers and the Welfare Queens of Wall street continue to defraud the real tax payers of the 99% is a significant factor in the growth of nation state debt and should be remedied with far more swindging penalties.

Secondly those in the same income bracket are the peers of such people so ensuring that tax rises occur in this bracket will ensure additional peer pressure on the tax fraudsters and also an increase in the numbers ratting out the tax fraudsters.

As I said a 30% Rise in taxation of the top 15% of income earners for 5 years or until austerity is no longer needed seems like a reasonable and workable solution. Ringfencing this so that it pays back the loans that the 1%ers bankers and Wall Street Welfare Queens caused or created is only reasonable.

Higher taxes on the the most afluent is clearly the fairest, no idle rich person will starve or become homeless because of this, and most just way of dealing with a depresion that was after all is said and done created by the 1%ers bankers and Wall Street Welfare Queens.

Clearly they contracted to fix capitalism and to make it work, the rest of us should hold them to their contract.

Kind Regards Walker

Edited by walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said a 30% Rise in taxation of the top 15% of income earners for 5 years or until austerity is no longer needed seems like a reasonable and workable solution. Ringfencing this so that it pays back the loans that the 1%ers bankers and Wall Street Welfare Queens caused or created is only reasonable.

Higher taxes on the the most afluent is clearly the fairest, no idle rich person will starve or become homeless because of this, and most just way of dealing with a depresion that was after all is said and done created by the 1%ers bankers and Wall Street Welfare Queens.

Clearly they contracted to fix capitalism and to make it work, the rest of us should hold them to their contract.

Walker, this is like the 50th time in this thread that you have repeated the exact same thing without responding to criticisms. Your plan to overtax the rich wouldn't even come remotely close to being able to cover the debt; even taking 100% of the income of every single household in the United States that brings in $250k or more per year wouldn't come close to covering the debt. Severe austerity (i.e., government spending cuts) would still be required; all your extra taxation would do is diminish GDP and destroy jobs, which would, in turn, diminish revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all

In Reply to PELHAM Care to prove you statements?

Yes...can you prove yours?

-Linking to the ONS website is not proof of anything - please cite the document and page number.

-Linking to statistics and evidence for the US when the point was about the UK is misleading.

-Linking to press stories about out of date statistics is bad practice.

Try again please.

Edited by PELHAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Republicans are being taught to talk about Occupy Wall Street

I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-street-133707949.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

The video sounds more like the usual bleeding heart libertarian excuses for giving the idle rich tax scroungers more, tax benefits and welfare for the wealthy.

If the tax benefits to the 1%ers, bankers and welfare queens of Wall Street take too long to be reduced the effect will only serve to continue to increase the deficits they created and mean they will have to endure even higher taxes to fix the damage they have done to capitalism.

I suggested a reasonable 30% increase in taxes on the top 15% for five years or until austerity was no longer needed but we still have the idle rich and their mouthpieces panhandling for more tax benefits; don't they realise that the recesion they created is destroying capitalism?

It's time to give them some tough love. Enough of this bleeding heart libertarian tax break entitlement culture, Tax em' till they scream. Then we will know that the tax benefit reductions are having the needed effect and teaching them the lessons they need to learn about pulling their weight in society and learning to invest wisely.

Kind regards walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video was more about today's generation not having any experience with going without, they wouldn't know hardship if it hit them on the head with a hammer.

There was nothing about coporations or banks deserving bailouts or any form of welfare from the goverment in that video.

Todays youth are more concerned about Twitter going down for a few hours then they

are about putting the work in to secure their future.

Hell, people online in Canada were up in arms when Craigslist went down for a day

because of a simple DNS issue.

God forbid an Earthquake hit or a hurricaine knocked out the power and water

so bad that it wouldn't come back on for several months.

Lots of talk about the joys of Marxism, Socialism and Anarchy but funny how none of them talking about it never actually want to go live it. like yourself Walker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Todays youth are more concerned about Twitter going down for a few hours then they

are about putting the work in to secure their future.

.

Hehe, this is true tho hardly a political or partisan affair. I often call todays youth idiots but the fact is they are probably no dumber then mine but seem to have the attention span of rabbits on meth in heat and their general knowledge of world affairs - abysmal. Hell when I was a kid, we would walk 30 minutes to the library if we wanted to know or learn about something - today, just click and move, click and move...

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised in the least if scientists discovered actual changes in brain chemistry that can process information maybe faster but has a harder time locking in on things -anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been meeting with the Occupy Vancouver [Canada] people the last few weeks and going to General Assemblies in the evening at the former Occupy camp.

99% of the time is spent doing nothing but this

- Hours of trying to decide which online communication system to use. Twitter, Facebook or Google+, US Stream or Livestream...Skype or Google talk... etc

2 months later and they still can't agree on anything.. Livestreams of the GA's are

pretty much a blurry, stuttering barely watchable affairs.

- 45 minutes to discuss having a 3 minute moment of silence

Still no decision on that. The reason for the silence. Unknown.

- Most of the "Leaders" basically the dominent personalities of the group

obsess over anything that involves them getting on camera.

If it doesn't involve them being camera whores they aren't interested.

Ignoring of course that all of them constantly complain the media is the enemy.

- Several hours of discussing spending money they don't have on things

they don't really need for the "Movement".

- 1 hour to vote on what kind of snacks they want for the next meeting

3 minutes of that to decide on a dip.

- Outdoor meetings at the former occupy site last 2 hours because any more

that that is too cold for their precious tootsies. However, leaving to homeless to occupy is fine.

This is Vancouver. It averages about 5-7C at night in December-January.

Goes on like that. Basicly the people who fought for equality and change

in the 60's and before that would probably pull out a gun to shoot them

to put them out of their misery.

The West in in decline and part of that is because we have become lazy, sit on the coach, microwave dinner addicted layabouts.

Many students coming out of College think they can get a $100,000/yr job

with a degree in finger painting and the study of feminist theory

as it applies to the slugs living on the floor of South American rain forests.

Airlines are being sued because their seats are too small for their passengers lazy asses.

Teachers are being bullied and sued because they dared give someones precious little cupcake a well deserved C instead of an A+.

Sports teams are now handing out trophies to everyone cause "Everyone's a winner"

even banning winning team celebrations because it might make the "losing team feel bad".

Fat, lazy and pussified is what the west has become and it's partly because of

our success. the last few generations don't know what hardship is, they don't know

the difference between needing something and just wanting something.

And finally. Remember that National Geographic study a few years ago?

11% of Americans couldn't find the USA on a map.

Something like 15%+ of Japanese students couldn't find the Pacific Ocean on a map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post jblackrupert - they tried all this nonsense back in the 60's and discovered it didn't work. If everyone has a voice and everyone's opinion has to be heard and if every decision has to be based on those views and opinions nothing ever gets done. Some great Monty Python sketches are based on it. They debate between the peoples front members in the Life of Brian is a classic.

hUBAx8jbYNs

Edited by PELHAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×