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

[mrcash2009 0]

So essentially we have all discovered and explained that we know have a dumbed down generation that are easier to manipulate and control bold is for the main points.

Now that bit has been battered to death here, maybe people can get back to actually looking at the ones above and systems in pace that got to this stage? .. maybe? Instead at repeating the glaringly obvious and ignoring the threads point .... again.

Sorry as much as I agree, I haven't read this thread for a while and just see Jblack STILL in the same loop of the same banter since the other thread got locked, and that was what, within a whole month or so?

New generations are born into the current mindset and its the generations that are the target and the results are working wonderfully right now, what you are actually witnessing is text book results.

But ... while we are all plugging the next generation (which I agree on) like near old timers, isnt that just as bad as the protests, IE focus on them getting manipulated, watch and comment, and then never realy look at anything above them in this 1 percent where this manipulation ascends from.

[BasileyOne 10]

yes. progressive taxing is usual practice virtually anywhere outside US.. and Russia.

but scale[of curve] will differ dramatically, between times[up to 7x -11x difference].

second rationale: why [attempt]to tax 99% which hold 1% ?pointless in both meaning. tax entities able to carry taxes and support society thus[despite silly effort(such as move to US)to evade this].

this also beneficiary for social stability as well as index of happiness of population[check statistics per/countries around globe. interesting numbers here].

Edited December 5, 2011 by BasileyOne

[st_dux 26]

yes. progressive taxing is usual practice virtually anywhere outside US.. and Russia.

The United States has the most progressive taxation system in the world.

[Baff1 0]

LMAO.

Doubtful in the exptreme.

The United States is famous for being a low tax economy.

It is amongst the highest tax economies that you will find the most progressive taxation system in the world.

[st_dux 26]

LMAO.

Doubtful in the exptreme.

The United States is famous for being a low tax economy.

It is amongst the highest tax economies that you will find the most progressive taxation system in the world.

The overall level of taxation has absolutely nothing to do with the level of progressiveness in the distribution of those taxes.

http://goo.gl/cMUFz

Note the highlighted bit.

[PELHAM 10]

The overall level of taxation has absolutely nothing to do with the level of progressiveness in the distribution of those taxes.

http://goo.gl/cMUFz

Note the highlighted bit.

Well said!

[Baff1 0]

The overall level of taxation has absolutely nothing to do with the level of progressiveness in the distribution of those taxes.

I fully expect it to be integrally linked.

How could it avoid being so.

You can't just tax endlessly without provoking a revolution.

So what you have to do is tax wealthy minorities the most.

You then give everyone else in the country a share of that wealth and then the mob approves.

So the more you tax, the more "just" you have to make those taxes sound.

That's why they started using appealing sounding names like "progressive" because words such as "stealing" and "robbery" have such negative connotations.

If poor people had enough money to pay for all the government planned expenditure, no need for a progressive tax would exist.

Everyone would just pay their poll tax and that would be the end of it.

But people are greedy. They want more than the average man on his own can afford. So they have "progressive taxes". Which means they tax some people more than others, because they can.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Baff1

[walker 0]

Hi all

Why not turn Banking on its head?

At the moment we loan via the central bank trillions to bankers to loan back to us and make themselves trillions in interest.

Instead give every citizen the decision on who to loan that money too and the interest they accrue from it. It would also remove the need for welfare benefits.

Kind Regards walker

[st_dux 26]

I fully expect it to be integrally linked.

You can expect whatever you want, but "progressive" has a definition in the case of taxation, and by that definition, the United States has the most progressive tax system in the world. This isn't really disputable; it is a fact based on tax distribution statistics.

Now, I am not saying that I am necessarily glad that our tax code is so progressive, but the fact that it is means that all of those "99%ers" crying about the rich not paying their "fair share" are quite ignorant.

Why not turn Banking on its head?

At the moment we loan via the central bank trillions to bankers to loan back to us and make themselves trillions in interest.

Instead give every citizen the decision on who to loan that money too and the interest they accrue from it.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with Walker here. If it were up to me, I'd abolish the Fed completely.

[Baff1 0]

Your tax code isn't the most progressive.

The divide between richest and poorest in your country is about as big as it comes in the world.

Higher tax economies such as Germany for example are far more progressive than yours.

I completely agree that the 1%ers pay far far more than their fair share.

But I think you have massively understimated the progressiveness of many other countries taxation systems.

What did I read today?

The guy at the top of an American company earns an average of 14 times the guy at the bottom. In England it is 10 times and in Germany that is only 6 times.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Baff1

[st_dux 26]

Your tax code isn't the most progressive.

The divide between richest and poorest in your country is about as big as it comes in the world.

Higher tax economies such as Germany for example are far more progressive than yours.

Yes, the divide between richest and poorest is relatively high in the United States compared to other Western nations, but this has nothing to do with tax distribution. This has to do wealth distribution, and there are different measurements, such as the Gini coefficient, which describe this.

Tax progressiveness has to do with tax distribution. The more highly distribution is skewed toward the wealthy, the more progressive the tax system is said to be. If you looked at the relevant section of the book that I linked above, you would see that the United States has the highest concentration coefficient for household taxes (a measurement of the degree to which taxes are concentrated at the top of the wealth scale) among OECD countries, making its tax system the most progressive in the world.

This does not imply that the United States has a more equal distribution of wealth than other countries. It simply means that the United States collects a greater percentage of its total tax revenue from its richest citizens than other countries.

[Baff1 0]

Sorry but I couldn't find any obviously relavent part in that book you linked me.

I tried for a while and gave up.

Taxes everwhere are most concentrated on the wealthiest.

You can't tax the poor more if you want more taxation, you have to tax the wealthier. Those who have what you are trying to take.

America is a low tax society.

Everybody has progressive taxes, not just America, those people who have higher burdens than America can be assumed to have a more progressive taxation system, since they have to tax their rich more than Americans have to theirs.

I think you will find that the divide between the rich and poor has lots to do with the taxation system. A progressive one, takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

So an example of a country with a big divide between rich and poor is not expected to be the country with the most progressive taxation system, but intuatively a less progressive taxation system.

I'm sure there are other factors in wealth and poverty of course. But we know what we are broadly expecting to see even before we start looking up the results.

Honestly, if you live in America, when it comes to tax, you don't know you are born.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Baff1

[st_dux 26]

Sorry but I couldn't find any obviously relavent part in that book you linked me.

I tried for a while and gave up.

That's astonishing since it was highlighted, but here, I'll help out:

Here is the relevant text:

The second panel of Table 4.3 shows the distribution of household taxes (income taxes and employee social security contributions). Because taxes are deducted from household incomes, higher values of the concentration coefficient imply a more progressive distribution of household taxes. Taxation is most progressively distributed in the United States, probably reflecting the greater role played there by refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. [...] After the United States, the distribution of taxation tends to be most progressive in the English-speaking countries -- Ireland, Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada -- together with Italy, followed by the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Germany. Taxes tend to be least progressive in the Nordic countries, France and Switzerland.

Here is the table to which the text is referring with the relevant data highlighted:

[Baff1 0]

Many thanks.

[nettrucker 142]

This is a vid that I want to share with you guys. Happy new year 2012

jUmQbf1AyA8&feature=player_embedded

WTF!!!!

[reconteam 19]

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.

^ This.

The whole "occupy wherever" crowd is a joke. I don't like the state our economy is in. I don't like how much CEOs make compared to the people under them (yet it is wrong to blame anybody for wanting to be filthy rich, I certainly want that). Yet their "solutions" are idiotic. It's 1960s nonsense repacked for the lazy internet generation. Kids who've been pampered and think they know it all. Yet they're too lazy to think for themselves and would rather just buy up whatever Jon Stewart or idiots on certain (usually left-wing) websites are saying.

Seriously, take a look at Reddit or 4chan or one of those sites these losers practically live their lives at. These are the people with solutions for the economy? What a joke. They'd turn America into hell.

Technically I'm part of the same generation, yet apparently all of the fluoride in the water didn't turn my brain to mush like it did to theirs. One can only hope they don't represent the "99%" any more than the '60s hippies did. Some of them even have the whole '60s disrespect to our soldiers and military (unless said soldiers are gay) attitude down. Plus they a whole lot of anti-Israel crackpot conspiracy-theory BS. Disgusting.

What's amusing is that they insult "radical" groups like the Tea Party for their displays, then proceed to set up shanty towns on stimulus grass, leave piles of human feces, demand handouts, and sell drugs.

These idiots will be the death of society.

Edited December 23, 2011 by ReconTeam

[mrcash2009 0]

Yes, but what do you think about this threads title and reason of its existence?

OWS thread died some time ago.

[b101_uk 10]

Tax % level should be the same for everyone apart from the people at the lowest end of wealth or of state retirement age (e.g. on welfare type state benefits) who should pay 0%.

There really is no reason why anyone should take on more of a % tax burden than a majority of the populous when in a lot of the cases it’s not the rich people in many sectors who caused the problem.

After all if you going to tax a small group ludicrous amounts above that of the masses what do they get in return as an incentive to stay in that country? They obviously don’t get much gratitude for paying the already vastly higher tax % than most as this thread shows.

I know if the UK government put my tax % up to what the so called 1%ers get taxed at I would sell up and leave the UK in short-order with my small amount of wealth, so you can see why rich people leave if they are going to get excessive % tax vs. elsewhere that may have lower tax % and a more pleasant/temperate weather.