Occupy Wall Street

[dane]

and yet the most prosperous times in our nation's history has been where top rate tax bracket is between 50-90%.... Wonder why? Because they're forced to invest their money back into companies in the US/the country instead of hoarding it offshore and using every grey tax loophole so that they're never even paying their fair share due to never actually reporting the correct amount of income... PIC started it's decline from 70% to the current rate starting with reaganomics in the 80s and up until the point we're at today.. Wonder why the economy has slowly started it's gradual decline as the top earners aren't investing their wealth back into the country, instead shipping jobs overseas and using loopholes to get out of paying the measly 35% that they're required too now. Hoarding wealth and shipping middle class american jobs overseas in the name of bigger profit margins and bucks in their pocket has slowly shrank the middle class to the point where there isn't hardly one left to buy their products.. But hey man, your dad makes 100k! (no clue what you do, or if you even work, wouldn't be shocked to find out you don't) so lets protect those top earners who hold way too much influence on the way our nation is ran through special interest groups and lobbyists in Washington.. As long as the 99% can pay the burden for them stuffing their coffers, it's all good right?



You're a **** idiot.

[dane]

and your blind defense of the banks/1%/so forth is just astonishing.. God forbid the top earners in this country (the country they live in and were able to make so much money!) are being asked to give back to make the country better, what a shock... God forbid having to help other people who aren't as fortunate as you to have a greater society as a whole.

[mg_]

If you're going to make the argument the 'bottom don't pay anything', then you're patently ignoring state and local taxes, payroll taxes, etc.


The bottom pay a huge proportion of their income to taxes. The top do not because of clever financial tools.


Like, yeah, there are a lot of idiots at Occupy Wall Street. There are also a lot of people who are tired of a system that is subsidizing ridiculous financial risk to the tax payer while allowing the profits to remain privatized.


America needs the Glass-Steagall Act badly.

[BrentMusburger]

God forbid the top earners in this country (the country they live in and were able to make so much money!) are being asked to give back to make the country better, what a shock... God forbid having to help other people who aren't as fortunate as you to have a greater society as a whole.

I would be willing to bet that any given super rich person has given back via foundations or donations more in the last quarter than your entire family tree has throughout its entire exsistance.

Who the **** are you to tell someone how they "should" spend their money again?

in the name of bigger profit margins and bucks in their pocket has slowly shrank the middle class to the point where there isn't hardly one left to buy their products..

And what would you have them do? Hire people just for fun? Reduce profit margins intentionally? Crush their own market share and drive off cheaper capital?

Business is business. People are in business to make money.

Why don't you open your little fairy tale business and practice what you preach. It won't be long before it's in bankruptcy.

so lets protect those top earners who hold way too much influence on the way our nation is ran through special interest groups and lobbyists in Washington..

If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free, it expects what
never was and never will be.---

The people control who gets to Washington and who stays in Washington. I'm sorry the average American is retarded, completely lazy and ignorant and doesn't fight for their best interests. A lot of people don't even vote period, let alone actually know what they're voting for or against. Sorry some people have organized and fought for things in their best interests.

If such a small group of people are dominating decisions against the "helpless" majority, then why doesn't the majority rise up and vote...and get what favors them instead. Create their own "little special interest group" of sorts.

Oh, that's right they're too busy texting on their blackberry and watching dancing with the stars to do anything proactive (apathy and dependence stage of the fall of great civilizations).

Pointing out problems does not solves anything. Create a solution to the problem and begin working towards it. If you learn one thing it's that if you want something done, the only way it's going to happen is if you take charge and do it. If you wait for someone else to do it or for it to just fall from the heavons, you're going to be waiting a long **** time.

If you're going to make the argument the 'bottom don't pay anything', then you're patently ignoring state and local taxes, payroll taxes, etc.

I will agree that local and state types of taxes are regressive in nature and hurt low income earners more (However, at least these taxes they are paying is going directly to THEIR roads and THEIR schools), but when I said they don't pay anything I was clearly referring to federal income tax rates (like they were in the video). If you really want to get into it, the rich pay state and local taxes as well..so.

The top do not because of clever financial tools.

CORPORATIONS ARE DOUBLE TAXED. Even if the entity itself does not pay federal income taxes because of taking advantage of provisions in the code, by buying new machinery or donating or whatever, the EARNINGS PAID TO SHAREHOLDERS ARE STILL HIT.

If a corporation grows tremendously from being given breaks, it means they will still pay more state and local taxes for materials or payroll taxes, and their donations help reduce government burden (hense they get a break for it). Their federal liability may be lowered because they're smart enough to invest in accountants(spending THEIR MONEY and paying more payroll taxes, on computers, on whatever to reduce other kinds of taxes), but again, it's all double taxed. IT'S DOUBLE TAXED.

If they taxed the corporations more (IE taking money away that could be invested)....there's less earnings to pay out to shareholders....If they tax corporations less, and STIMULATE the economy in many of the ways I've already mentions, HEY HEY there's more earnings paid to shareholders (and access to cheaper capital)...that get hit with taxes anyways.

If you're referring to high earners like an athlete, movie star, or CEO, then it works in a very similar way to corporations. Every cent is eventually taxed and taken somewhere along the line. The code merely specifies who gets which break where---while encourging or discouraging certain behavior.

You're a **** idiot.

Uh huh. If we could somehow magically reset the income distribution, how long do you think it would take for the stupid, lazy people to be poor again and the successful to be succesful again? It wouldn't be long before these idiots shouting in parks would be requesting for things to be made "fair" again.

(no clue what you do, or if you even work, wouldn't be shocked to find out you don't)

I'm a CPA. Don't question my work ethic. Thanks.

[scorch-]

HAHAHA I'M A CPA DON'T QUESTION MY WORK ETHIC.
p.s. you're posting on an internet forum at 2pm in the middle of the week.

You completely missed dane's point, by the way. He's not saying that rich people shouldn't try to make money, he's saying that our tax policy encourages actions by those rich people that drive our economy into the shitter. Whether poor people are uninformed/ignorant isn't relevant to the truth of the statement. Whether or not the available solution is there if the ignorant/uninformed can vote for it isn't relevant. Our tax policy sucks, our corporate structure sucks, and so long as our economy sucks (due to #1 and #2) people don't have a choice but to deal with it.

Also:
Given that no super rich person has gone to war for this country in the last quarter, their "giving back via foundations or donations" pales in comparison to what dane's family tree has given to our country in just one generation. It's easy to "give back" when giving back is free (at least our tax code makes donating to [the bureaucrats running] non-profits free!).

[BrentMusburger]

HAHAHA I'M A CPA DON'T QUESTION MY WORK ETHIC.
p.s. you're posting on an internet forum at 2pm in the middle of the week.

And so are you. People do not work 24 hours every day. What's your point?

It's easy to "give back" when giving back is free (at least our tax code makes donating to [the bureaucrats running] non-profits free!).

[/quote]

Right....
Say $100,000 of their taxes went to feeding poor. Instead, they give $100,000 directly to a charity of their choice....and THEN get a tax break. Only because they reduced the government burden. What part of that was "free"? They're meeting the social burden directly instead of the government doing it, but it's the same result.


The tax code "sucks", yet you don't seem to know the first **** thing about it.


Spare me the military speach. We're one of the most aggressive and greedy empires the world has ever seen. If anything, all it has done is sown the seeds of our own destruction. Americans are brainwashed beyond measure when it comes to the American military.


Our tax policy isn't why the economy sucks. I'm not going to bother explaining the actual reason, but if you'd like to give yourself the slightest bit of a clue read this.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1 ... 54,00.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=3482
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html

Get a clue.

[gwolf_]

I won't get my CPA certification for a few more months so I don't have that superb work ethic that Brent Musburger has (by the way, who the **** are you? Did you ever even play DOD?) but for the record I agree with Dane and Scorch. Please don't judge all CPA's by this guy.


He is however partially right that its not the tax code's fault the economy sucks. Its more the fact that George Bush took over the economy in 2001 and decided that we could have all the great economic growth from the 1990's but we wouldn't have to pay for it. The clinton era taxes are what we need to go back to.

[mg_]

HAHAHA I'M A CPA DON'T QUESTION MY WORK ETHIC.
p.s. you're posting on an internet forum at 2pm in the middle of the week.

And so are you. People do not work 24 hours every day. What's your point?

Also:

It's easy to "give back" when giving back is free (at least our tax code makes donating to [the bureaucrats running] non-profits free!).

Right....
Say $100,000 of their taxes went to feeding poor. Instead, they give $100,000 directly to a charity of their choice....and THEN get a tax break. Only because they reduced the government burden. What part of that was "free"? They're meeting the social burden directly instead of the government doing it, but it's the same result.

The tax code "sucks", yet you don't seem to know the first **** thing about it.

Our tax policy isn't why the economy sucks. I'm not really going to get into it, but our economy sucks because we abused our privaledge as the world's reserve currency, and we're about to pay a very high price for it if/when we lose said power----which unfortunately seems likely at this point. Then you'll see what a really shitty economy is.

One is completely compulsory the other is only if the wealthy individual chooses to do so. I know charities, especially right now, feel desperate every year. There is no "guarantee" that guy that gave $100 or $200 or $5,000 or whatever will do so ever again.

There is a reason why we quit banking on the wealthiest simply to be charitable as some sort of social safety net.

Contrary to your popular belief, the poor and the lowest class are the mostly likely to give, and they do so in fairly meaningful contributions in relation to their income. Source.

It might not seem like it's a big deal to you, but charitable giving is down across the country, but the poor are the ones the most willing to part with their money.


Just so you know, the BCS games like the Orange Bowl is a registered non-profit and counts as a charity because it "encourages tourism to Miami." I wager when you start putting in perspective of what qualifies at a 501(c), then you'll see how a lot of wealthy people in particular **** the system. That's just anecdotal, but if you were to start combing through the 501s and donor lists you wouldn't be surprised with the results.

Maybe we can deconstruct that myth that the wealthy will just give to charities if they didn't have to pay taxes, right up there with "businesses will act in their long term best interests."

[BrentMusburger]

Please don't judge all CPA's by this guy.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It says nothing about my character or how I conduct myself personally or professionally.

I don't agree with them. Deal with it.

[gwolf_]

Just so you know, the BCS games like the Orange Bowl is a registered non-profit and counts as a charity because it "encourages tourism to Miami." I wager when you start putting in perspective of what qualifies at a 501(c), then you'll see how a lot of wealthy people in particular **** the system. That's just anecdotal, but if you were to start combing through the 501s and donor lists.

Maybe we can deconstruct that myth that the wealthy will just give to charities if they didn't have to pay taxes, right up there with "businesses will act in their long term best interests."

only 501(c)3 organizations allow for deductible contributions, the orange bowl may be a 501c but its not a c3. For example when I was in college I was the treasurer for my fraternity, it was a 501c7. So we were non profit obviously but you couldn't get a tax deduction for contributing money to it.