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

[PELHAM 10]

Hi all

In reply to PELHAM.

PELHAM I posted the full text of your post for others to judge alongside my opinion of your post.

Kind Regards walker

I think you need to look up opinion and summarise in the dictionary. You are attributing things to me that I did not say or comment on - still waiting for that retraction and apology.

If you are going to engage in emotive topics it is wise to check your facts and make sure you are posting accurate information. The latest clanger about Ron Paul not being a candidate in 2008 would have taken 30 seconds to check properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#2008_presidential_campaign

Edited November 22, 2011 by PELHAM

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply PELHAM. Double checked Ron Paul was not a candidate for Republican party. He was nominated by some of his friends though

He was, but he did not win the Republican nomination, which is why he isn't listed among the general election candidates.

And continuing on in the same subject in reply to ST_DUX anyone can nominated but only those on the ballot are candidates for president.

There was a party like the libertarians in the UK. Called the Monster Raving Loony party. Originated and originally lead by a very entertaining musician a certain Screaming Lord Sutch who sadly died a few years ago.

Unlike Ron Paul Screaming Lord Sutch did not sell out other than some of his concerts.

7_YOW6rgd44

Can Ron Paul sing?

Any way back to the subject of the thread, there is general consensus round the world that the 1%ers and bankers are, leaving the 99% with the bill for the 1%ers and bankers failure to fix capitalism after they broke it yet again despite being given trillions to fix it.

Hence why everyone wants to punish the 1%ers and bankers. With the social contract broken the danger is that these punishments might take a "biblical" form.

As I keep saying a 30% rise in the tax rate for the top 15% of earners for 5 years or until austerity is no longer required, would cause the burden to placed on those most responsible for the failure of capitalism.

Other suggestions have been a return to earlier capital gains tax levels.

Others suggest mass investigation and trials.

Perhaps a certain amount of all three is needed.

Either way these iniquities and inequalities must be addressed or we will go down a very dark path.

Kind Regards walker

Edited November 22, 2011 by walker

[rangerpl 13]

Hi all

In reply to Abs and RangerPL

Was Ron Paul a candidate for president in 2008?

Open Secrets the website that RangerPL selectivley quotes from says not:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php

Indeed he was. He just didn't get a nomination. Either way it's relevant because you accuse him of being a friend of the banks. I would have used 2012 figures but that campaign hasn't started yet.

By the way always better to quote the original source page. For all anyone knows you may have made up that picture. Still have not found the original source for your picture would you care to enlighten us?

>argument fails

>out of options

>accuse other side of false evidence

>???

>profit

I actually could not find the exact source page because I got that picture from reddit. But, since you had to ask:

Obama: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Paul: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&type=I&cid=N00005906&newMem=N&recs=20

He was not even a libertarian in that election it was the one where he sold his soul to the Republican party and put his support behind a certain Mr McCain.

Ron Paul sold his soul... hahahahahahaha that is the best stuff I've heard from you so far. He's been a strict constitutionalist his whole career. Shall I bring up his House voting records or will you back down with dignity?

Edit: And, oh, he never endorsed McCain. He endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I don't know where you get your facts from, but they're closer to fairy tales than actual fact.

I end this post with a quote from none other than Ron Paul:

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism."

Edited November 22, 2011 by RangerPL

[PELHAM 10]

Hi all

In reply PELHAM. Double checked Ron Paul was not a candidate for Republican party. He was nominated by some of his friends though

1st line of the link:

2008 presidential campaign

Republican primary campaign

Paul formally declared his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination on March 12, 2007, on C-SPAN.

He was a Republican candidate for President up until June 12, 2008, Paul withdrew his candidacy for the Republican nomination after it became clear McCain would win the September 2008 Party Conference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#2008_presidential_campaign

You might also find this interesting:

Republican Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008

John McCain

Mike Huckabee

Mitt Romney

Ron Paul

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Republican_nomination

To be fair RE the donor list comparison we should really be comparing like with like:

Obama vs McCain 2008

As you can see although the banks also donated to the Replican Nominee - it's just a token amount. Less than half what they gave Obama

Obamahttp://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

McCainhttp://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424

Edited November 22, 2011 by PELHAM

[rangerpl 13]

Hi all

In reply PELHAM. Double checked Ron Paul was not a candidate for Republican party. He was nominated by some of his friends though

And continuing on in the same subject in reply to ST_DUX anyone can nominated but only those on the ballot are candidates for president.

We've already shown you your error. Please read the post above.

There was a party like the libertarians in the UK. Called the Monster Raving Loony party. Originated and originally lead by a very entertaining musician a certain Screaming Lord Sutch who sadly died a few years ago.

Unlike Ron Paul Screaming Lord Sutch did not sell out other than some of his concerts.

Can Ron Paul sing?

Very subtle attempt at insulting libertarians there. You compare a satirical political party to a legitimate ideology.

Any way back to the subject of the thread, there is general consensus round the world that the 1%ers and bankers are, leaving the 99% with the bill for the 1%ers and bankers failure to fix capitalism after they broke it yet again despite being given trillions to fix it.

General consensus. By general, of course you mean "walker".

Hence why everyone wants to punish the 1%ers and bankers. With the social contract broken the danger is that these punishments might take a "biblical" form.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sure, the bankers are corrupt but they should only be punished for illegal things, not "leaving the 99% with the bill".

As I keep saying a 30% rise in the tax rate for the top 15% of earners for 5 years or until austerity is no longer required, would cause the burden to placed on those most responsible for the failure of capitalism.

Capitalism hasn't failed because we haven't had capitalism yet.

Others suggest mass investigation and trials.

Right, because purges are the solution for any problem.

Either way these iniquities and inequalities must be addressed or we will go down a very dark path.

Indeed, it's just that the method you propose is illogical and dangerous.

Walker, you sound like a socialist revolutionary, except you make poorly-informed posts on the internet instead of actually doing something.

"Punish the upper class". Where we have heard this before?

As I said countless times, there's a better way to fix the economy and it won't require us to establish a police state, engage in mass arrests or "punish" anyone who didn't break any laws. Anything the government touches, turns to shit. So why should we trust the government with the economy?

Of course, I'm just a bleeding-heart libertarian who is in bed with Goldman Sachs.

Edited November 23, 2011 by RangerPL

[froggyluv 2130]

Capitalism hasn't failed because we haven't had capitalism yet.

Im guessing your meaning a totally free and unregulated market thru and thru? If so, where is the model of this success and what system built our great nation if not Capitalism?

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to RangerPL so now are you saying Ron Paul has never been a Libertarian?

He did join the Republican party in 2008 did he not? Or are you denying that too?

I can see why you might want to deny his belief in the the economics of the libertarians as it is based on Friedman's theories of economics and money supply which as I pointed out are fundamentally flawed and that Friedman himself admitted he got wrong.

You do realise that without the foundation of Friedman's economic theories the Libertarian economics have no basis in financial reality, that they are just pipe dreams.

Unless you can tell us what the value of Friedman's constant for velocity of money circulation is?

And just why do Bleeding Heart Libertarians think the 1%ers and Bankers have a right to skip austerity?

Kind Regards walker

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Im guessing your meaning a totally free and unregulated market thru and thru? If so, where is the model of this success and what system built our great nation if not Capitalism?

If you actually paid attention in government class of your senior year of high school, you would remember that the text book says the United States is a "mixed economy."

He did join the Republican party in 2008 did he not? Or are you denying that too?

How have you not been banned for trolling is beyond me. I have seen others on this forum get a vacation for a lot less.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[froggyluv 2130]

If you actually paid attention in government class of your senior year of high school, you would remember that the text book says the United States is a "mixed economy."

What are you nuts?!? Senior year was all about biggest keggers and loosest cheerleader -c'mon mate be real.

Mixed economy sound good -I like checks and balances in all aspects of life -minus me ol lady checkin in on me after midnight :p

[Hans Ludwig 0]

What are you nuts?!? Senior year was all about biggest keggers and loosest cheerleader -c'mon mate be real.

So what you are telling me is that you never read a simple, sixth grade reading level government book in high school, but you then want to scream from the heavens that you know more than the rest of us plebeians, correct?

[froggyluv 2130]

Negative son. Six grade is not the senior year :rolleyes:

I've been actively watching C-Span where shit actually goes down since my young 20's and have a pretty good grasp of our political machinations ever since. Theres nothing new happening -just different parties using plaid out rhetoric and scrambling to find ways to make the other party appear diametrically opposed to their own talking points -even if to the average man their paths often cross similar if not the same line.

Its all a game to them, so I laugh and laugh hard at those who've think they've found 'The Way' thru some recent regurgitation of some dusty old economic paradigms and think it's somehow revolutionary.

Just another kind of shoeshine is all.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Negative son. Six grade is not the senior year :rolleyes:

I know for a fact that most novels that you do read in high school are the seventh grade reading level, with all other textbooks being at the sixth grade reading level, with the latter being true for most print media in the US (you can find this information from the Public Relations Society of America's website).

I know this because I was an intern doing public policy research on literacy for a state representative. I also remember a professor telling us during college orientation that the text books are written above the "sixth grade" reading level - probably a way to weed out and scare the rest of us to what academia is all about (or should be). That was six years ago, for both.

---------- Post added at 05:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 AM ----------

I laugh and laugh hard at those who've think they've found 'The Way' thru some recent regurgitation of some dusty old economic paradigms and think it's somehow revolutionary.

Economics is a science. It's peer reviewed just like all of the other social/hard sciences. Therefore, someone such as yourself can't come along and say it's out dated, old and doesn't make since and then it becomes scientific law because you said so. For one, you don't have any credentials to make such an absurd claim to knowledge. Secondly, you have yet to submit your theory for peer review that would challenge said "regurgitation of some dusty old economic paradigms."

For someone that said they were too busy getting stink finger in high school to be bothered with studying, I would naturally be very skeptical of anything they present as the pretense of knowledge.

[froggyluv 2130]

Dunno I was reading Tolkiens The Two Towers in first grade -parents taught me while I was still forming in the sac :D

That said most kids today are incredibly dim-witted. My wife is a college professor and sometimes asks me to help her grade papers which always turns into me spitting said drinkable onto said paper out of pure idiocracy. Gems such as "the grete country of Africa..." are a dime a dozen.

In my field I only hire guys and girls who have solid text-book comprehension as well and more importantly -hands on experience at a clinical level. PHD's in my field generally lead to failure or mediocrity at best.

Edit: Well then I'll ask again -show me the infallible Libertarian Free Economy that has blown the minds world and Ill take a gander -till then, its just talk mate.

Edited November 23, 2011 by froggyluv

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Hans Ludwig.

From what I can see Ron Paul is only a Republican to get power, he does not support other Republicans, he does not even vote for Republican presidents. As often as not if he cannot win a Republican nomination he jumps ship and joins the Libertarians. He seems very confused about his own politics. Hence everyone's confusion about which party he is in at any particular point in time. It all seems to be about getting power with Ron Paul. The pandering to racism is a constant theme he writes things then denies them and says ghost writers wrote it for him.

Any way back to the topic of the thread.

As you are such an expert on economics perhaps you can you can tell us what the value of Friedman's constant for velocity of money circulation is?

And just why do Bleeding Heart Libertarians think the 1%ers and Bankers have a right to skip austerity?

Kind Regards walker

[PELHAM 10]

Could someone explain this:

Top donations in 2008 for the Presidential elections. If Obama doesn't have a cosy relationship with Wall St. Why did they give him so much money compared to McCain?

source:

Obamahttp://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

McCainhttp://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424

Edited November 23, 2011 by PELHAM

[walker 0]

Could someone explain this:

Top donations in 2008 for the Presidential elections. If Obama doesn't have a cosy relationship with Wall St. Why do they give him so much money compared to McCain?

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/5672/screenshot28iu.png

source:

Obamahttp://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

McCainhttp://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424

Hi All

In Reply to PELHAM

First of all thank you for providing full links to your sources. :)

On the substantive matter of your post:

It comes under the headings of:

Not betting on a looser: Supporting the side that is going to loose is a bad commercial decision, Banks did not want to upset the Person who was going to be the next President, by giving more support to his opponent.

Trying to obscure previous action: By saying your a big supporter of the person who you think will be the next President you hope no one will notice what you did before you were a big supporter.

Political leverage: A receiver of a political donation has no real obligation to the one who donates, but they can raise a stink, threaten to withdraw future funding, it works the same as a drug dealer getting some one addicted to crack.

Blackmail: This is one of the most effective uses of political donations. Give some one a donation supposedly from A for Purpose X. Tell them later through a Lobbyist you want them to do Y. If they do not do what you want Point out it really came from B or that it was for purpose Y and that if they wont do Y then they must pay back the Donation and that whether they do pay it back or not you are going to tell everyone it came from B for purpose Y.

I believe the latter is what you are getting at PELHAM

Any way back to the subject of the thread.

While everyone else is having wage freezes or being made unemployed and homeless

City pay jumps 12pc in year

Average City pay has jumped 12pc over the past year – five times that of the manufacturing industry, reports reveal.

By Louisa Peacock, Jobs Editor

6:03AM GMT 21 Nov 2011

And amid growing criticism that bosses’ salaries are spiralling out of control, pay for managing directors in the Square Mile has soared 21pc to £237,000 in the period.

The typical salary for City workers was up 12pc to £83,000 in the 12 months to October, research by recruitment firm Astbury Marsden reveals today.

Separate research reveals the average pay rise in manufacturing has fallen slightly in recent months to 2.4pc and wage freezes have started to creep up, amid high inflation and rising unemployment...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8903042/City-pay-jumps-12pc-in-year.html

As always follow the link to the original text in full

Apparently according to the financial sources they need to be paid this because all the other international financial centres round the world are giving the same or better increases.

Once again just why do Bleeding Heart Libertarians think the 1%ers, Bankers and Wall Street Welfare Queens have a right to skip austerity?

Kind Regards walker

Edited November 23, 2011 by walker

[PELHAM 10]

Hi All

In Reply to PELHAM

First of all thank you for providing full links to your sources. :)

On the substantive matter of your post:

It comes under the headings of:

Not betting on a looser: Supporting the side that is going to loose is a bad commercial decision, Banks did not want to upset the Person who was going to be the next President, by giving more support to his opponent.

Trying to obscure previous action: By saying your a big supporter of the person who you think will be the next President you hope no one will notice what you did before you were a big supporter.

Political leverage: A receiver of a political donation has no real obligation to the one who donates, but they can raise a stink, threaten to withdraw future funding, it works the same as a drug dealer getting some one addicted to crack.

Blackmail: This is one of the most effective uses of political donations. Give some one a donation supposedly from A for Purpose X. Tell them later through a Lobbyist you want them to do Y. If they do not do what you want Point out it really came from B or that it was for purpose Y and that if they wont do Y then they must pay back the Donation.

I believe the latter is what you are getting at PELHAM

Kind Regards walker

Well if that's the case why didn't Obama refuse to accept the money?

[st_dux 26]

From what I can see Ron Paul is only a Republican to get power, he does not support other Republicans, he does not even vote for Republican presidents. As often as not if he cannot win a Republican nomination he jumps ship and joins the Libertarians. He seems very confused about his own politics. Hence everyone's confusion about which party he is in at any particular point in time. It all seems to be about getting power with Ron Paul. The pandering to racism is a constant theme he writes things then denies them and says ghost writers wrote it for him.

• Ron Paul is a libertarian (small L). He has not been a member of the Libertarian (capital L) Party since he was their presidential candidate in 1988. The last time he ran for president he sought the Republican nomination, and when he did not get it, he did not "jump ship and join the Libertarians"; he conceded and did not run in the general election. In recent interviews, Paul has made it clear that he would not consider running as an independent or for any other party if he does not receive the Republican nomination in 2012.
  
• The only person confused about what party Ron Paul is in is you. Ron Paul is an ideological libertarian (again, small L) who is a member of the Republican Party. He is not affiliated with the Libertarian Party in any way.
  
• The "pandering to racism" bullshit is patently false and is getting tiresome.
  

As you are such an expert on economics perhaps you can you can tell us what the value of Friedman's constant for velocity of money circulation is?

This red herring has nothing to do with the libertarian argument for free markets. Milton Friedman, while he was a great economist, is not the only or best example of a libertarian economist. The Chicago School (Friedman) and the Austrian School (Mises, Hayak, Rothbard, etc.) are two different schools, and libertarians tend to fall in more with the latter. The Austrian School has criticized the quantity theory of money put forth by Friedman; you don't need it to support free markets.

And just why do Bleeding Heart Libertarians think the 1%ers and Bankers have a right to skip austerity?

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. This is not at all fair, and it would lead to massive unemployment and deeper economic recession.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to PELHAM.

You really need to read the stuff you quote.

...Political leverage: A receiver of a political donation has no real obligation to the one who donates, but they can raise a stink, threaten to withdraw future funding, it works the same as a drug dealer getting some one addicted to crack.

Blackmail: This is one of the most effective uses of political donations. Give some one a donation supposedly from A for Purpose X. Tell them later through a Lobbyist you want them to do Y. If they do not do what you want Point out it really came from B or that it was for purpose Y and that if they wont do Y then they must pay back the Donation and that whether they do pay it back or not you are going to tell everyone it came from B for purpose Y.

I believe the latter is what you are getting at PELHAM...

Fuckem :)

They donated. They are bankers. Their loss.

The US President does not owe them so much as a nod.

Meanwhile on the main subject of the thread.

While everyone else is being urged not to negotiate high wage rises, accept pay cuts and accept massive levels of unemployment not seen since the Thatcher era; Senior bankers award them selves another hefty 21% pay rise

Senior London Bankers' Pay Jumped 21%, Recruitment Firm Says

Ambereen Choudhury, ©2011 Bloomberg News

Monday, November 21, 2011...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/11/21/bloomberg_articlesLUV54I6TTDS9.DTL

Follow the link to read the article in full.

Inequality and iniquity is destroying social cohesion, the failure of capitalism that the 1%ers bankers and Welfare Queens of Wall Street have wrought, is causing the 99% to become angrier by the day.

No wonder the power of the people frightens the 1%ers, Bankers and Welfare Queens of Wall Street so much.

Taxing the 1%ers Bankers and Welfare Queens of Wall street until the Debts that they created are paid off is clearly the way forward and would ensure the 1%ers Bankers and Welfare Queens of Wall Street would think twice before creating more bubbles like the US property bubble or the current Fiat Gold Bubble.

Kind Regards walker

Edited November 23, 2011 by walker
spelling

[rangerpl 13]

Hi all

In reply to Hans Ludwig.

From what I can see Ron Paul is only a Republican to get power, he does not support other Republicans, he does not even vote for Republican presidents. As often as not if he cannot win a Republican nomination he jumps ship and joins the Libertarians. He seems very confused about his own politics. Hence everyone's confusion about which party he is in at any particular point in time. It all seems to be about getting power with Ron Paul. The pandering to racism is a constant theme he writes things then denies them and says ghost writers wrote it for him.

Again I wonder what you are smoking and where I can find some of it.

Unlike most (read: all other) politicians, Ron Paul is loyal to an idea, not a party. He doesn't support Republicans if their ideals are incompatible with his. He backed the Libertarians (and continues to do so) because their ideology agrees with his.

In fact, Ron Paul is the kind of guy who would vote for a Democrat if he agreed with him.

I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand; he is the only honest man in Washington, doesn't flip-flop and has remained loyal to his ideals, not what his party leaders are telling him.

Being a maverick is a good thing.

[st_dux 26]

Fiat Gold

Contradictio in adjecto. Gold has intrinsic value, unlike modern currencies.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to ST_Dux's post

Contradictio in adjecto. Gold has intrinsic value, unlike modern currencies.

Well even people at the forum of your favourite politician have realised that gold has a perceived value and that what you are looking at is Fiat Gold

Gold is fiat money too

Submitted by jeff34761 on Thu, 07/17/2008 - 11:17

in Daily Paul Liberty Forum

I want to present a point of view that will most likely be unpopular with DP gold bugs, but that should be important to everyone concerned with their financial future. Gold and its intrinsic value is a perceived value. You can not eat gold, run your car on it or power your house with it. Those of you that are banking on the value of gold being higher in the future are playing the greater fool. While gold may have more value than a declining dollar, it is not the most scarce commodity on the planet. Logic would dictate, if Gold Prices stay high, new exploration will eventually lead to greater supplies, and perhaps lower prices...

http://www.dailypaul.com/55303/gold-is-fiat-money-too

As always Follow the link to read the original Text in full

Most of the value of "Gold" traded now is in Electronic Traded Futures (ETF) in other words financial instruments just like the ponsi scheme that was the Credit Default Swaps (CDS) you remember them dont you? Fake Triple A credit that was just Junk with a thin veneer of good credit wrapped around it.

Heck even Gold Bars from fort Knox have turned out to be fakes made of tungsten dipped in gold.

http://gold-quote.net/en/articles/fake-tungsten-gold-bars.php

"]

[/url]

The situation with gold is so bad that your favourite politician wants the Fort Knox gold audited, but the fact that Fort Knox fake gold has already been discovered out in the market means; even if you have bars you do not know if they are fake or not.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/24/news/economy/ron_paul_gold_audit/index.htm

Of Course the major bank holders in Gold in the US have been increasingly shorting gold for some time as I reported earlier, but the thing that should have made you most aware is that graph I posted earlier:

...

When you keep hearing the same myths that went around at the end of the property bubble "the price went up for the last ... So it can only go up!" Also known as the one born every minute explanation; you know it is all puff.

As in Puff, Puff, Puff, POP hisss... EG: VVV

Secret gold swap has spooked the market

It takes a lot to spook the solid old gold market. But when it emerged last week that one or more banks had lent 380 tonnes of gold to the Bank of International Settlements in return for foreign currencies, there was widespread surprise and confusion.

By Rowena Mason

6:10PM BST 11 Jul 2010

The news that a mystery bank has just pawned the family jewels gave traders a jolt – nervous about the sudden transfer of almost 20pc of the world's annual gold production and the possibility of a sell-off.

In a tiny footnote in its annual report, the bank disclosed its unusually large holding of gold, compared with nothing the year before. The disclosure was a large factor in the correction of the gold price this week, which fell below $1,200 for the first time in more than a month...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/7884272/Secret-gold-swap-has-spooked-the-market.html

As I pointed out earlier one only has the obligation to warn someone they are stepping into the road in front of a speeding truck, if they ignore the warning well Darwin's evolution removes stupid people.

Back to the substance of the thread.

The US Congressional Budget office has shown that the 1%ers and banks are getting a larger and larger share of US GDP while paying less and less tax. While the 99% are left with poverty, unemployment homelessness and now austerity driving down the wages of the few who are working and the pensions as well as they have to take up the slack that that idle rich are failing to deal with after they broke capitalism.

http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485

The top 1% doubled their share of the nations GDP:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/top-earners-doubled-share-of-nations-income-cbo-says.html?_r=1

While everyone else was tightening their belts.

No wonder so many Americans are angry with the Republican Congress:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/poll-finds-anxiety-on-the-economy-fuels-volatility-in-the-2012-race.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

As I keep saying a 30% rise in income tax on the top 15% of income earners for five years or until austerity is no longer needed to pay off the Debt would seem a reasonable solution. Of course the longer we wait to pay off the Debt the more those tax rises for the idle rich will have to bite either by being a higher rate or by lasting a lot longer.

Once again I want to know just why all these Bleeding Heart Libertarians think the 1%ers, Bankers and Welfare Queens of Wall Street have a right to skip out on paying for the Debt their mishandling of capitalism created?

To you Bleeding Heart Libertarians Just why should all these the 1%ers, Bankers and Welfare Queens of Wall Street not have to pay for austerity?

Kind Regards walker

Edited November 28, 2011 by walker
off not of

[PELHAM 10]

If Walker ever gets his way I do hope union bosses will contribute, 37 union barons pocketed more than £100,000 each in pay and perks in 2010:

Derek Simpson former Communist Party member, was the joint general secretary of Unite, Britain’s biggest union, until last year.

Severance package of £510,659.

Gross salary of £97,677 and more than £51,000 in housing benefit and car allowances.

Lives in a Union owned property at a rent of just £1 a week, and is entitled to remain in the property until he dies.

Royal College of Midwives Cathy Warwick salary, £129,663

benefits £41,691

total £171,354

Unite the Union Tony Woodley salary £93,815

benefits £28,293

total £122,108

Christine Blower, National Union of Teachers.

Earns £103,003 with annual pension contributions of £26,007 and £11,157 in national insurance.

Dr Mary Bousted, Association of Teachers and Lecturers.

General secretary has a £108,000 salary, supplemented by a pension contribution of £27,096 and £13,148 in national insurance.

Mark Serwotka, Public and Commercial Services Union.

Mr Serwotka’s £89,000 salary is topped up with a pension contribution of £26,159 and another £9,410 in national insurance. Overall, his pay package is worth £125,000.

Dave Prentis, Unison.

He takes home £97,237, topped up by a pension contribution of £24,919 and £9,250 in national assurance.

Sally Hunt, University and College Union

Total package was £126,502 last year.

No doubt comparisons will be made with top executives who earn more but just what do Union bosses do to justify such amounts?

Sources:

Trades Union Rich List:

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/tradeunionrichlist0611.pdf

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/867663-union-bosses-pensions-equal-to-members-pay#ixzz1ejU5rzE5

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016418/Derek-Simpson-Former-union-boss-pocketed-500k-golden-goodbye.html#ixzz1ejUqnH1k

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3663299/100k-deals-for-striking-bosses.html

Edited November 25, 2011 by PELHAM

[walker 0]

Hi all

In Reply to Pelham I made my case clear if they fall into the top 15% then tax em till they scream, tax emm all.

Not bothered about what job they do.

Are they the people that caused the breakdown of capitalism? No I would not think so they would not have been involved in either creating Credit Default Swaps or Gold ETFs or any of the other numorous ponsi schemes that the financial industry has used to break capitalism.

Never the less capitalism needs fixing and the burdon for fixing it must fall on the broadest shoulders and particularly on those who should have prevented the failure of capitalism but it appears were too busy raising their own living standards at the expense of everyone else.

At the very least such people are in a powerfull economic possition and should both have been more aware of the dangers they were allowing to ferment in capitalism. And were in positions to prevent it.

Increasing taxes on those people will make them think twice before alowing capitalism to fail again. It will make them do their job in society better by making them pay attention and by creating a more competetive environment for them work in which will be more conducive to prudent and sensible investment. That said I rather suspect many of them are stupid enough to invest in the gold bubble but as I pointed out earlier one only has the obligation to warn someone they are stepping into the road in front of a speeding truck, if they ignore the warning well Darwin's evolution removes stupid people.

The sooner the tax levels and regulation of the gold markets are raised the better for us all even the foolish buyers of it. Far to many tax dodges and money laundering scams going on there.

Kind Regards walker

Edited November 26, 2011 by walker

[rangerpl 13]

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.