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

[PELHAM 10]

172 kb image removed

99.9kb image added:

Edited November 6, 2011 by PELHAM

[walker 0]

Hi all

If capitalism works it is for 1%ers, banks and those who believe in it to put their money where their mouth is and prove it and stop expecting the 99% to pay for capitalism's failure through austerity.

Kind Regards walker

[rangerpl 13]

Hi all

If capitalism works it is for 1%ers, banks and those who believe in it to put their money where their mouth is and prove it and stop expecting the 99% to pay for capitalism's failure through austerity.

Kind Regards walker

The current situation is not because of a failure of capitalism. It's a failure of corruption. Capitalism works if there is a level playing field, the problem is that government was corrupt and allowed rich bankers to buy themselves an advantage.

[walker 0]

Hi RangerPL

Yet the 1%ers banks and supporters of capitalism seem unwilling to put their money where their mouth is. They expect everyone else to clean up their mess.

I do not think this is acceptable behaviour. For decades they have reaped trillions of dollars as often as not at the expense of those that actually did the work via what they say is capitalism yet when the chips are down suddenly the 1%ers bankers and supporters of capitalism dare not risk those trillions of dollars to fix capitalism; instead they expect the 99% to cough up.

Infact we have people on this forum explaining how and why they should be able dodge the taxes everyone else pays.

As I say I do not think this is right.

Kind Regards walker

Edited November 6, 2011 by walker

[Innomadic 10]

-snip-

Not that i'm supporting absolute socialism (some aspects are indeed a good thing), but you're completely off the ball there if you're blaming the USSR's failures on Lenin.

[st_dux 26]

@walker:

It's the government that is to blame. They are the ones that took the money from the "99%" to pay for the failures of the "1%". Without the government, those reckless banks would have failed. They would have paid.

[PELHAM 10]

Not that i'm supporting absolute socialism (some aspects are indeed a good thing), but you're completely off the ball there if you're blaming the USSR's failures on Lenin.

No nothing against Lenin - he had some nice sounding, unworkable ideas like someone else we all know. He failed to look at the practicalities, the common failure of dreamers.

[rangerpl 13]

Hi RangerPL

Yet the 1%ers banks and supporters of capitalism seem unwilling to put their money where their mouth is. They expect everyone else to clean up their mess.

I do not think this is acceptable behaviour. For decades they have reaped trillions of dollars as often as not at the expense of those that actually did the work via what they say is capitalism yet when the chips are down suddenly the 1%ers bankers and supporters of capitalism dare not risk those trillions of dollars to fix capitalism; instead they expect the 99% to cough up.

Infact we have people on this forum explaining how and why they should be able dodge the taxes everyone else pays.

As I say I do not think this is right.

Kind Regards walker

The 1%ers exist because we don't have true capitalism. In a truly free market, they wouldn't have any of the advantages, subsidies and tax breaks that the government gives them.

They don't expect anyone to clean up their mess, in fact they hope that nobody does. That way they can keep exploiting the system.

I say, just make sure everyone is held accountable for illegal practices and tax evasion. The free market will redistribute the wealth on its own.

Edited November 6, 2011 by RangerPL

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to RangerPL, hence why I think we should hold the 1%ers, bankers and the supporters of capitalism to their contract and make them prove capitalism works.

Kind Regards walker

[rangerpl 13]

Hi all

In reply to RangerPL, hence why I think we should hold the 1%ers, bankers and the supporters of capitalism to their contract and make them prove capitalism works.

Kind Regards walker

History has already proved that capitalism works. Look at the difference in economic development between the former Soviet Union and the United States. Americans enjoy higher salaries (even the 99% does), better standards of living, lower crime rates... the list goes on.

The problem with 1%ers is that what they created isn't capitalistic at all. It's not a free market if the government gives you special privileges like subsidies, tax cuts, etc.

[Dosenmais 10]

In reply to RangerPL, hence why I think we should hold the 1%ers, bankers and the supporters of capitalism to their contract and make them prove capitalism works.

Okay Mr.Neverreadabook i prove you.

Are you hungry? Are you starving? When was the last time you realy were hungry? Do you have a store which sells food nearby?

[igneous01 19]

Some things in human nature do not evolve.

The need for food and warrmth and air to breathe.

Some things are so elemental and indeed fundamental to human nature that you cannot get away from them.

Thats not human nature though - That implies every single living organism on this planet, I think the term needs to go because it dilutes to the idea that only Humans share this trait. These are primary building blocks to all life really.

But, I still stand by my belief (or faith) that eventually altruism may become a possibility for human beings. Delusional? Lets face it, Im a romantic when it comes to these ideas, nothing wrong with that, but for people who might think this just came from some obscure youtube videos or web pages, are further from the truth.

I only suggest people spend some more time self-reflecting and taking everything they know and deciding for themselves what's right and wrong in life.

[dmarkwick 261]

Thats not human nature though - That implies every single living organism on this planet, I think the term needs to go because it dilutes to the idea that only Humans share this trait. These are primary building blocks to all life really.

But, I still stand by my belief (or faith) that eventually altruism may become a possibility for human beings. Delusional? Lets face it, Im a romantic when it comes to these ideas, nothing wrong with that, but for people who might think this just came from some obscure youtube videos or web pages, are further from the truth.

I only suggest people spend some more time self-reflecting and taking everything they know and deciding for themselves what's right and wrong in life.

Human nature seems to be the pursuit of imaginary tokens (money) :)

Something wrong with that, no wonder we're all insane.

[kernriver 4]

The words "Corporatism" and "Capitalism" are two different beasts.

In the US, we have the former.

The 1%ers exist because we don't have true capitalism. In a truly free market, they wouldn't have any of the advantages, subsidies and tax breaks that the government gives them.

...

I don't think we ever lived in true capitalism.

BTW, I'll ask again: what about North Dakota state bank, does anybody know anything about it?

They seem to do pretty well over there.

[walker 0]

Hi all

To those of you falling for theoretical academic twadle about how capitalism is supposed to work. Start living in the real world. I have heard the same kind of navel gazing from communists too. Theoretical is imaginary, practical is real.

Capitalism like communism is a simplified theoretical economic "model" that we use in economics to explain a dynamic chaotic system. They never have or ever will exist in reality. It always amazes me that people who clearly have not read or if they have read some economics have never understood it, keep bowing down to a theoretical explanation of chaotic dynamic system as if it were a god.

Communism and capitalism are just theories that we use as tools/maps to steer economic decisions when they are wrong you replace them.

Clearly capitalism has failed as a tool/map of our economic situation to such a degree that the 1%ers, banks and supporters of the capitalism model dare not risk their own money to fix it.

Since it was their fault it was adopted and subsequently failed, the first port of call for moneys to fix it must be the 1%ers, bankers, and supporters of the capitalism model.

If they fear for their money so much that they have failed to fix it themselves despite contracting to do so with trillions of dollars of tax payer bailouts then I fail to see why we should not raise taxes on the 1%ers, banks and supporters of capitalism to pay for capitalism's failure.

Clearly those who both broke it, and are its primary beneficiarys and cheerleaders are the ones who should be the ones to fix it and prove that it works.

By the mere fact that they dare not risk the trillions that they have earned from capitalism, we then know for certain that they are aware that capitalism does not work.

If they will not act when given the carrot of bailouts then it is time to use the stick of punishing taxation on them.

Kind Regards walker

Edited November 7, 2011 by walker

[GRS 10]

Tax the banks and they'll just make it harder on the 99% anyways. Doesn't take a genius to foresee that.

[walker 0]

Tax the banks and they'll just make it harder on the 99% anyways. Doesn't take a genius to foresee that.

Hi GRS,

They are doing that already.

In all honesty I think we have re route fractional reserve lending away from banks and give it straight to citizens and entrepreneurs using the flood up economic method.

Kind Regards walker

[Macadam Cow 1]

Something wrong with that, no wonder we're all insane.

Our "increasing mental sickness" may find expression in neurotic symptoms. These symptoms are conspicuous and extremely distressing.

But "let us beware," says Dr. Fromm, "of defining mental hygiene as the prevention of symptoms.

where there are symptoms there is conflict, and conflict always indicates that the forces of life which strive for integration and happiness are still fighting.

The really hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal.

Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does.

They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society.

Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted,

still cherish the illusion of individuality, but in fact they have been to a great extent deindividualized. Their conformity is developing into something like uniformity. But "uniformity and freedom are incompatible(...)

Brave New World Revisited, A. Huxley 1958 ;)

[Dosenmais 10]

Communism and capitalism are just theories that we use as tools/maps to steer economic decisions when they are wrong you replace them.

Clearly capitalism has failed as a tool/map of our economic situation to such a degree that the 1%ers, banks and supporters of the capitalism model dare not risk their own money to fix it.

First of all i have to reminde you: There is no such thing as a voters testing.

He can make votes that infect your personal life based on his believes.

Secoundly, Capitalism isn't an "ism". Its the natural order. People trade, people use money, gain property. These are natural phenomenons. Capitalism isn't an "ism" because there is no need for a Government or such thing to enforce this kind of order, people will always trade and produce. And it isn't possible to "fix" this. But this government mechanisms all around, they were a failure from the beginning. They are the problem, and they can't be fixed. They have to go...

Capitalism didn't work? I have to ask you fool again, are you starving? You wrote this crap on a computer, a technology which 100 years ago not even a King could enjoy!

If Walker still refuses to read BOOKS he should pack his rag and move to fucking china because his parrot sounds like them.

[PELHAM 10]

Tax the banks and they'll just make it harder on the 99% anyways. Doesn't take a genius to foresee that.

At the moment most banking is free, they make their money out of the interest and charges for going overdrawn etc. Tax the banks and they will start charging a monthly fee for your current account. £5-£10 a month!

[dm 9]

At the moment most banking is free

In the UK maybe, most banks elsewhere already charge a monthly fee. Tax the banks and that will go up (or be introduced)

Just like the bailout money SHOULD have come with the restrictions "you can NOT use this money to: go on holiday, pay your bonus, buy a business jet" etc etc, any additional taxes introduced must come with regulations "cost increase must not be passed on to the customer"

[Baff1 0]

At the moment most banking is free, they make their money out of the interest and charges for going overdrawn etc. Tax the banks and they will start charging a monthly fee for your current account. £5-£10 a month!

Or putting mortgage rates up or increasing their transaction commisions etc.

Plus there is only so much stored wealth available in the world.

Our savings are a finite resource.

So if you raise taxes, and some one else does not, all our savings can make a better return by being lent to someother society instead.

If you don't want successful banks, you don't have to have them.

There are plenty of other people who do want mortgages and bank loans and do think that record low intrest rates are not too much to pay.

If a load of dossers just see an opportunity to take more of what they haven't contributed, why not just leave them behind to flounder on their own?

[mrcash2009 0]

If a load of dossers just see an opportunity to take more of what they haven't contributed, why not just leave them behind to flounder on their own?

That's allot of people left to flounder, those are the people that live all around you and me that also includes immigrants as they haven't "contributed" students and people leaving study in debt living at home and not working, long term unemployed not contributing "now" as it were (dosser = non contributors = a bit of a blanket statement) going by your point. As you might have seen immigrants and UK they have been flowing in nicely up to this stage (latest border news was a corker).

So if you want kaos & race riots / rioting in general & general society breakdown, where will you and others go whose suggesting the "floundering own their own" bit? That shift will only leave a large number of people around you with nothing left to loose change of bank / money exchange or not.

If any shit storm hits financially all "contributions" will go up like a puff of smoke for all.

Edit:

Just thought Id add this into the mix:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058354/RBS--500m-bonuses-casino-bankers-despite-collapse-profits.html

£500m bonuses for ‘casino’ bankers at RBS… despite collapse in profits

I guess that whatever happens at RBS they got something to stash, after all they contributed, so they can watch the flounderers too, with expensive 3D glasses on :)

Edited November 7, 2011 by mrcash2009

[walker 0]

Hi all

We still have people persisting in the argument that if you tax them 1% and Bankers will leave and go live in a tax haven argument; which I dealt with earlier so I will just quote my answer then:

...That criminals avoid tax is well known. You do not ignore criminal scroungers you lock them up and confiscate the proceeds of their crime.

Your suggestion that we let those criminals involved in tax avoiding off because we cannot catch them all is the same as saying don't go after theives because we cannot catch them all. It is a cowardly answer.

If people want to live in a tax haven fine. Then they should loose their passports and citizenship. There are costs to living in a country under it's protection if you do not want to pay then you loose your right to its protection. Then with regard to countries that aid in criminal tax avoiding simply bring in embargos including flights cut them off from internet.

This whining that we cannot deal with criminal tax avoiding is just defeatist nonsense often as not perpetrated on us by the 1%ers themselves and their paid mouthpieces...

If they want to go live in a tax have fine goodbye and good ridance I wonder how many they will be able to lend to if their ports are blockaded and their internet cut off.

They can stew in their tax haven's.

Either contribute or bye bye dont let the door hit you on the way out.

That said I think a 30% income Tax increase on the 15% top earners for a period of 5 years or until austerity is no longer needed is a reasonable solution, that any one other than the most selfish of people would accept. It is not a tax on wealth and it is time limited.

If people want to argue the tax increase should be more focussed on the 1%ers and Banks/Bankers then they need to speak up.

The necessities of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich; and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Author Not Marx, but the founder of modern economics and capitalism, Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations

Kind Regards walker

Edited November 7, 2011 by walker

[Dead3yez 0]

If they want to go live in a tax have fine goodbye and good ridance

Who would you want to tax if they left?