What is Occupy Wallstreet?

[kandrathe]

The Tea Party defines false consciousness to the extreme, because their agenda is based on turning this country into a right-wing christian, moral playground, and it's not going to happen.

Which is your narrow view of what they are about, rather than a coalition of various local "chapters" with their variety of stated goals. But, a summary of common interest would be encapsulated in the Texas groups contract;

• Identify constitutionality of every new law
  
• Reject emissions trading
  
• Demand a balanced federal budget
  
• Simplify the tax system
  
• Audit federal government agencies for waste and constitutionality
  
• Limit annual growth in federal spending
  
• Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010
  
• Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy
  
• Reduce Earmarks
  
• Reduce Taxes

So it's not really the moralist "Christian" nightmare you propose. It could be more described by a preference for a smaller, more accountable government.

They want lower taxes? A joke. We already have the lowest taxes in the world among any other western industrialized nation.

Where do you find your facts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Corporate taxes = highest in the world. Personal taxes = low middle. Most revenue collected = US. Many places, like the Bahamas, have 0% income tax. So, however you look at it... No, not even close to true.

Race? We have a black man as the president, and it is killing them inside.

Who are the top two Republican front runners currently? A black man executive rag to riches story, @ 24%, and a Mormon former governor of one of the most liberal states @ 22%. So much for your Evangelical religious right theories. Then, there were the ~10% of registered Republicans who crossed over and voted for Obama...

Women are more prominent than ever in the political arena and will continue to be more so as we progress.

Women represent 27% of the Afghanistan National Assembly: 68 out of 249 seats in the Wolesi Jirga and 23 out of 102 seats in the Mesherano Jirga in 2007.

In the US(111th Congress), women represented 17% (17/100) in the Senate, and 17.4% in the House.

The 112th Congress has one fewer woman, than the 111th. What party elected the first woman to the House, to the Senate? First party to cast an electoral vote for a black man (in 1888). But, in general, I'd agree and in the Tea Party, women have been extremely prominent.

Anyone who is working class and votes Republican is voting against their own interest.

Who do you define as the "working class"? I think you are clinging to an anachronistic view of class.

"Further, if the hypothesis that culture primarily produces class were true, such a non-dialectical, causal relationship pertains more validly in some low-social mobility societies. Scandinavian countries by contrast have discovered that removing structural barriers (and to some extent broadly valorizing working class culture) is effective in increasing social mobility, if not in eradicating social class under capitalism." -- Gilbert, Dennis (1998). The American Class Structure.

The rest of the world laughs at us, because we are still fussing and bickering over these trivial social issues, and not focusing on what really matters: Economics and class. We don't like to talk about class here in America, but it matters, and ultimately, people here are divided by class more than anything else.

Does the world really laugh at the US? I think there are probably a plethora of emotions, and humor is just one of them. Some may be angry, or apoplectic even... Some may be happy, or appreciative. Some may be fearful. Maybe you ingratiate yourself to your fellow self-hating leftist friends with such claims.

A 2011 BBC poll found recently, "Of the countries surveyed, 18 hold predominantly positive views of the US, seven hold negative views and two are divided. On average , 49 per cent of people have positive views of US influence in the world--up four points from 2010--and 31 per cent hold negative views. The poll, conducted by GlobeScan/PIPA, asked a total of 28,619 people to rate the influence in the world of 16 major nations, plus the European Union. "

Also, not nearly enough people participate in political affairs, especially young people. We are not in particular, a politically astute nation, and that is a bad thing.

Participation, yes, I too think it should higher. Astuteness? How do you measure this?

"It is an outrage to attribute the failures of American democracy to the ignorance and stupidity of the masses. The most disastrous shortcomings of the system have been those of the intellectuals whose concepts of democracy have been amazingly rigid and uninventive. (The Semisoveriegn People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America, 1960: p. 135-136)" -- E.E. Schattschneider

I blame much of that on the anti-intellectual agenda of the Republican party.

Of course you do. Because I find you are more emotional, clinging to your prejudices, than objective and rational on this issue. I blame it on the failure of secondary school education, the breakdown of family and community and the pablum spooning media, but to each their own. Republicans are not anti-intellectual, but are anti-paternalistic. They don't oppose having smart, educated people in government, but they do oppose smart, educated people who think they know what's best for people creating a big brother government that robs us of our personal choices in the name of do-gooding. But, Republicans have their shortcomings on do-gooding as well. There is the whole Patriot Act thing, and their support for TSA, and an equal portion of the "War on Drugs".

Tribalism was essentially a primitive form of communism.

So we've devolved away from the ideal form, only to return to it later once we've cast aside the frivolous notion of private property. I can envision that world, and when I gather around a primitive fire with my hunting party, we'll debate the merits of collectivism.

Also I notice you keep mentioning how Communism is total state control. False, a true communist society is one with NO state control. The people, not a heavy handed state, own and share the means to production and distribution of resources. If the state is involved, you are still in socialism

I see Connor McCloud as the one true Scotsman. "You only have one life! If you value it, go home! "

I can only comment on the Communism I've seen, not that envisioned in a Marxist fairy tale.

[Jester]

Where do you find your facts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Corporate taxes = highest in the world. Personal taxes = low middle. Most revenue collected = US. Many places, like the Bahamas, have 0% income tax. So, however you look at it... No, not even close to true.

He didn't say tax rates. He said taxes. And about this, he is correct, and you are not. The key for corporate taxes is not the stated rates, which are very high, but the rates actually paid, which are incredibly low. There are a million ways to dodge corporate taxes, and US corporations use every one of them. The fact that the US collects the most revenue is totally irrelevant, because the US is also the world's largest economy by almost twice. The question is per capita, or relative to GDP, and by that measure, it looks very, very different:



-Jester

[kandrathe]

You as a capitalist can't imagine people getting happiness out of other things than just money, wealth and possession. But what about the good education and understanding of arts and literature common under Russians during the cold war? What about pride in what you do instead of because of what brand of shoe you are wearing?

I'm not wearing shoes. I'm telecommuting today, so I wear my slippers and am sipping a nice cup of hot tea. Debating with my internet friends over the lunch hour. Happiness currently is a warm, purring kitty in my lap. You do know that I'm not really an investment banker, and my experience with Capitalism is mostly tied up in trying to figure out how to get my wife's twisted spine healed, my home paid off before I retire, and get my two sons through a good college. When I apply myself, I can make good money investing, but I find it tedious and it doesn't make me happy.

Tolstoy is not happiness. Dostoyevsky is not happy at all. Chekhov? Nope. I'm coming up blank. What is this happy Russian literature you speak of? Now, artists, like Baryshnikov, he was happy, especially after he defected to the west.

Anyway to get back to the argument of the kid in India. Capitalism is fun when you are born in the right family and country. Again, I am not at all proposing a communist society but please bare the differences in mind when making comments on this topic.

From what I've read about Commune living, the biggest problem the people have and fear is that if/when they decide to leave, they have nothing. The same is true with Communism in general. If you have nothing, even without the totalitarianism, leaving it is impossible.

I am not trying to convince you; we have had this discussion many times here so I know better. But I just hope you don't get your 'facts' about communism only from a Johnson infomercial.

Who is Johnson?

I am not dismissing any ideology or system I just don't think it is fair to say capitalism works when you have 5 billion people living in poverty. The fact that other systems might be worse is not an argument in that discussion.

How is China doing since the reforms?

[kandrathe]

He didn't say tax rates. He said taxes.

He said lowest. And, while 27% is low compared the the OECD average of 36%, we are not the lowest taxed western industrialized nation.

And... we just happened to be in a spike downward due to the governments tax cuts (Bush, 2001, and Obama 2009) in an attempt to stimulate the economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...age_of_GDP

Per GDP, we are not that far off from Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada. And, we are well above the 17% levels of India, and China. If the contest is for who has the biggest bureaucracy, then yes, by all means, Europe wins. I think what we are aiming for in the US, at least, is a high standard of living, and a competitive economy.

[Jester]

He didn't say tax rates. He said taxes.

He said lowest. And, while 27% is low compared the the OECD average of 36%, we are not the lowest taxed western industrialized nation.

You are, unless you count Mexico and Chile as "western industrialized nations," which is more than a little dubious, given that they have less than half your GDP/capita. And even then, it's only barely. By any standard, US taxes are low.

And... we just happened to be in a spike downward due to the governments tax cuts (Bush, 2001, and Obama 2009) in an attempt to stimulate the economy.

These numbers are stable, historically. This is not an illusion, this is not a blip caused by 2009. US taxes are, overall, very low. And it's no use pointing to tax cuts as some kind of exceptional circumstance, because that's the whole point! Taxes are low. Keep cutting them, and they'll get even lower.

Per GDP, we are not that far off from Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada. And, we are well above the 17% levels of India, and China. If the contest is for who has the biggest bureaucracy, then yes, by all means, Europe wins. I think what we are aiming for in the US, at least, is a high standard of living, and a competitive economy.

Set whatever policy goals you like. Maybe it's good to have low taxes. Maybe not. I'm only pointing out that you're wrong on the facts. Taxation in the US is either very low, or the absolute lowest, depending on who you count as "peers". Either way, you're wrong to say it is "Not even close to true" that the US has low taxes.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Either way, you're wrong to say it is "Not even close to true" that the US has low taxes.

I would count Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Mexico as western industrialized nations, in the economic and political sense.

And... Compared to low taxes, we are not the lowest. Compared to Denmark, we are a tax haven.

[Jester]

I would count Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Mexico as western industrialized nations, in the economic and political sense.

South Korea is still higher than the US. Hong Kong and Singapore don't count - City states run on different rules.

Mexico has about $9,000 GDP per capita (PPP). The US has $46,000 - five times as rich. If you think that's at a comparable level of industrialization, then all power to you - you found a single country with lower taxes. Doesn't change a thing, though.

And... Compared to low taxes, we are not the lowest. Compared to Denmark, we are a tax haven.

Absent an actual comparitor that doesn't sound silly, you've got "compared to low taxes"? Inventive comparison. But I stand my ground. If you can't name a country even close to the US' level of development with taxes that low, then you're the lowest. (The superlative is even irrelevant - "very low" is good enough.)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Mexico has about $9,000 GDP per capita (PPP). The US has $46,000 - five times as rich. If you think that's at a comparable level of industrialization, then all power to you - you found a single country with lower taxes. Doesn't change a thing, though.

Well, but if we drop the "western" and look at all industrialized nations...

Taiwan, Tax/GDP = 12.4 , GDP per capita = $35,604
The Bahamas, Tax/GDP = 18.7, GDP per capita = $30,049
Quatar Tax/GDP = 2.2 , GDP per capita = $88,222

Besides, going back the the point... The average Tea Party American feels their tax burden is too high. The data we are looking at conflates all taxation together, not that derived from citizens (state & federal income, sales tax, and property tax).

According to this page -- OECD Tax Database

The All In - Personal Tax Rates for Single - No Kids...
[attachment=79]

Your Tax to GDP ratio data would be more revealing if it broke it down by tax type. Even this is somewhat misleading since about 50% of Americans don't pay Federal Income tax. Which means that not only do some individuals pay more than many OECD countries, it is the 4 and 5th quintile that pay the lions share. And, it makes sense that the Tea party tends to be more that 4th quintile group, the one that FIT remarked was taxed at effectively the same rate as the 5th quintile.

[FireIceTalon]

Jester, may I ask what your major was in university and what you do for a living? It's not really my business, but you seem quite well versed in comparative politics and international relations, so I'm curious.

[Jester]

Jester, may I ask what your major was in university and what you do for a living? It's not really my business, but you seem quite well versed in comparative politics and international relations, so I'm curious.

I'm a PhD student in Economic History, with a focus on 19th century Latin America.

-Jester

---

Well, but if we drop the "western" and look at all industrialized nations...

Taiwan, Tax/GDP = 12.4 , GDP per capita = $35,604
The Bahamas, Tax/GDP = 18.7, GDP per capita = $30,049
Quatar Tax/GDP = 2.2 , GDP per capita = $88,222

Qatar and the Bahamas are not appropriate comparisons. Both are microstates and tax havens. Qatar is also swimming in oil money.

Taiwan, fine. Congratulations, you've found *a* country with GDP somewhere close to US levels, and lower taxes. The US doesn't have to be the absolute lowest in order to be very low.

Your Tax to GDP ratio data would be more revealing if it broke it down by tax type. Even this is somewhat misleading since about 50% of Americans don't pay Federal Income tax. Which means that not only do some individuals pay more than many OECD countries, it is the 4 and 5th quintile that pay the lions share. And, it makes sense that the Tea party tends to be more that 4th quintile group, the one that FIT remarked was taxed at effectively the same rate as the 5th quintile.

Jimminy Christmas. Half of Americans pay no income tax. Sales taxes are low to nonexistent. Corporate taxes are a joke, riddled with holes, that collect very little (2-3% of GDP). That's the *point*. That's what low taxes *are*.

And yet, because the remaining, relatively high income group is taxed at something resembling OECD average rates (still low, but closer), the Tea Party therefore has a point that taxes are too high?

No pleasing some countries, I guess.

-Jester

[eppie]

And... Compared to low taxes, we are not the lowest. Compared to Denmark, we are a tax haven.

Big difference is that in Denmark and Sweden you actually get something back from your taxes. If you would have lived in one of these countries (which I am/were) your attitude towards taxing would probably also be different. My wife gets around 7 months of 100% payed leave when going on pregnancy/maternity leave. After that I get another 7 months at least at 80% (plus my employer tops that up to 90%) (up to a certain max of course) and a few months for a lower contirubution. Oh yeah, and whenever my child is ill I can stay at home (paid) to take care of him (no max there).

Agreed if you don't have kids you don't have this benefit.....but kids pay for the pensions later on.

Anyway people tend to be a bit milder here because of this. Also we don't have the idea we are living in a communist state here. We have the fastest internet, a high educated population, lots of very well running companies (multinationals) etc. etc..

edit: O yeah our econpomy is doing pretty good.....it is just because of all the other screw-up nations that we have to be careful a bit.


On the other hand if you take Italy (a country that I more than once compared to the US and will compare again now) you pay a lot, you get nothing. Whereas Sweden and Denmark are social, but meritocratic, Italy is nepotistic with politicians that only care about themselves.

So again, I really understand why you have the opinion you have, seeing you are living in the US, but this does not have to be a general truth.

---

How is China doing since the reforms?

Well they are owning you.
As I said before; capitalism is pretty cool if you are top dog and you can get cheap products from other countries with low wages. Let's just see how it works out for you now that China wants what you have.

I only hope you can solve your problems without using force.

[FireIceTalon]

Ive never lived or even been to Europe, but that is pretty much how I feel about the taxes in America. Yea, we pay less than you guys, but I think we get much less in proportion to the amount less taxes we pay. Just this evening, my girlfriend and I were going to get coffee and have a chat, and on the way there I took a particular street that hasn't been repaved in probably 20 years. It was like driving on an old country road, and I said to her "what am I paying taxes for again?"......It is very frustrating. You guys pay more taxes than we do, but the difference is overstated I think, and you guys get so much more. 7 months with 100% paid leave?? WTF? Average person here gets like 3 weeks paid leave, more or less depending what you do.

[kandrathe]

Big difference is that in Denmark and Sweden you actually get something back from your taxes.
...
So again, I really understand why you have the opinion you have, seeing you are living in the US, but this does not have to be a general truth.

First... I don't believe in measuring a country by the size of their handouts. There should be a social safety net sufficient to prevent people from suffering, and anything more is gratuitous. In the US, the federal FMLA allows for a minimum protection of 12 weeks leave, and most companies have some policy about how they pay during that period. But, in the US, paid leave is at the discretion of the companies paid benefits. We don't get a leave check from the government for having a child. Personally, my wife and I planned for it, and saved up for about 5 years before she gave birth. She took off 3 months (1/2 of it was paid) then worked three 10 hour days for a year with the first one, and quit work for 5 years for the second one. I took off a month for both (1/2 was vacation time).


Denmark budget $181.6 billion for 5,564,219 people ($32,637.10). Revenue collected = $172.8 billion. And, about 72% ($23,498.35) goes back to the people in Health, Housing, and Human services.


In the OECD, Denmark has a pretty competitive tax rate.


US Budget spent $3.8 trillion for 312,513,000 people ($12,159.49) per person. Projected revenue of $2.228 trillion.

Interest payments on the debt are 10% ($380 billion double the entire Denmark budget). 20% is defense ($744 Billion), that Denmark has near zero percent. $2165.3 Billion (57%) are locked up in three programs, Social Security (pensions), Medicare (health care for the elderly), and Medicaid (Health care for the poor). Everything else, including education, transportation, TSA, agriculture, NASA, etc. comes from the remaining $670 Billion.

In order to match Denmark's spending per person, assuming the same distribution (i.e. pretty much eliminate defense), we'd need to raise the spending to $10.2 Trillion (72% of GDP), and raise about 8 trillion more in tax revenue. Denmark's budget to GDP ratio is 26%. The US 2011 est. GDP is ~ $15079 Billion, and est. total government expenditures all levels would be ~ $5968 Billion, so we are already at 39.6% of GDP. (source) To push spending to Denmark levels would bring total government spending in the US to 82% of GDP.

If we are arguing that the US taxes to revenues are a problem, I'd agree. If we are arguing that not enough people pay taxes, then I'd also agree. And, I'd argue even that the top quintile should pay slightly more than they pay now (%5-10%). For equality sake, you might even reduce the <$10,000 group to 2.5%. Then, 5% ($10,000 to $40,000) on the bottom earners, 10% for the middle($40,000 to $75,000), 23% for the upper middle ($75,000 to $200,000), and 40% for the top earners (=>$200,000). Still progressive for Jester's sense of justice, and not much of a change for most people. The rich pay more, the poor will need to pay a little instead of zero, and the middle pay slightly less. The end result is double the income tax revenue, and the key is that all income is treated the same. I still like the idea of a small consumption tax (maybe, 5%) for buying new items, excluding food, education, and medicine. The estimated tax base, on just new items, and excluding those items would be around $5 Trillion, so estimated tax revenue would be about $250 billion.

[attachment=80]

For corporate tax rates, I'd peg it to the GDP growth rate. <2.5% the rate is zero, 2.5-6% the rate is 10% or maybe 15%, > 6% the rate goes to 20%. Total corporate tax revenue in 2010 was $225.5 Billion, and our estimated effective rate is about 24%. Relative to 2010, if GDP was at the usual 6%, we'd get an additional $140 billion, if times were booming, we'd get and additional $187 billion. On the face of it, this seems unfair that we'd tax companies less, but in reality corporations don't earn money to squat on it, they use it to invest in new ventures, pay workers, and buy things. These are things we want our companies to be doing. Instead of taxing corporate earnings as much directly, and then again taxing investor capital gains, we just tax capital gains directly as income, and we also tax corporations just like anyone else, when they buy new things. Having the tax rate adjustable to GDP would act as an automatic stimulus during slow, or recessionary times, and as more of a speed governor as the economy got too hot. The effective rates would be low enough for the US to remain competitive against those places that are currently kicking our butts.

I'd remove the special status of capital gains. I'd simply treat gains as income (and leave into the tax code the part about spreading gains and losses over 3 years). For inheritance, this again should be amortized, and probably longer, like over ten years. I'm tired of seeing farms and small businesses sold because the children cannot afford to continue the family business due to the taxes. Remove the special deductions for mortgage interest over 5 years.

All that still does not add up to $3.8 Trillion, so we need to realign our spending priorities. I'd start with some cutbacks to the defense of non-US interests, then fix Medicare / health insurance spending, then fix Social Security. I'd work out a plan to better partition airports, abolish the TSA and turn over screening passengers to the airlines. I'd un-kneejerk the formation of Homeland security, and set a four year plan to reorganize it under the DOD. All in all, I think we can pare it down to under $2 Trillion, and start reducing the trillions in debt we have, and start refunding those unfunded federal pensions.

How is China doing since the reforms?

Well they are owning you.

That is my point. If you were building a manufacturing plant to build circuits, where would you want your company? Would you build it where wages are higher, costs are higher, regulations are strictest and taxes are highest? If companies are choosing China over the US, then the bulk of the employment will go there. What will remain here are the ones that cannot move, like dentists, doctors, educators, and the people that man the shops that sell you foreign made products, i.e. retail clerks, cashiers, stockroom. But, not only that, the wealth moves to where the company buildings are located.

[Quark]

[Jester]

The video footage of this is even worse. That picture only captures a fraction of the casual, theatrical gesture with which that cop just hoses down totally helpless people.

But, then, these people are hippies, and hippie punching is fun for the whole family, right?

-Jester

[NuurAbSaal]

The video footage of this is even worse. That picture only captures a fraction of the casual, theatrical gesture with which that cop just hoses down totally helpless people.

But, then, these people are hippies, and hippie punching is fun for the whole family, right?

-Jester

Reasonable force. They were clearly all about to get up, stretch, get the blood flowing again to their extremities, and then attack him...

Sad.

take care
Tarabulus

[FireIceTalon]

Just another day in the good ol' Divided Fascist States of America. And just another reason on already ridiculously long list to hate cops (bourgeois protectors).



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4

[LavCat]

What I've seen on the lounge tonight is as bizare as anything going back to the last century. However what interests me at the moment is what I've been reading (source) that under Louis-Philippe of France, hospital care in Paris was free, as well as being possibly the best care in the world at the time. For foreigners (i.e. Americans) medical education in Paris was free, and medical school lectures were open to all. Obviously someone had to pay for this, but the system was viable. Over sixty four thousand hospital patients were treated per year.

If a monarchical government can provide state of the art heathcare to the people at no charge why is it so difficult today?

[kandrathe]

If a monarchical government can provide state of the art heathcare to the people at no charge why is it so difficult today?

Leeches grow in the wild, and are easy to harvest?

[NuurAbSaal]

Some interesting info about the change of police riot policy in this article. Not really in-depth though.

take care
Tarabulus