US Protests: People aware Wall Street is real

[WoIverine]

because it's unfair. source

Life isn't always fair. Gotta suck it up and make the best of it. Most people are victims of their own poor life choices.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Spid3rCyd3

[BlindMessiah]

Life isn't always fair. Gotta suck it up and make the best of it. Most people are victims of their own poor life choices.

Just because life might not always be fair, our laws should be, otherwise what is the point of having them if it isn't to establish justice and order?

[preacherman76]

A consumption tax is just another variation of the consumption tax. It would cause serious inflation on goods everyone needs to survive, which wouldn't remotely affect the upper class. My family might be able to afford $6 milk. Someone on welfare can't pay prices like that. Also, switching to a consumption tax would further decrease demand worsening our current economic situation.

Morning BM

This is actualy not true. The tax, from every plan Ive seen, wouldnt include nesessary Items. Milk wouldnt get the tax. Its TV's DVD players, I phones, Ect ect. Things people want, not need. And think about it for a sec. People from other countries visiting spend a average of 4 billion dollars a year here, all taxed. Illegals, taxed. The entire under ground economy, taxed. It might not be a bad thing.

[Karlis]

Morning BM

This is actualy not true. The tax, from every plan Ive seen, wouldnt include nesessary Items. Milk wouldnt get the tax. Its TV's DVD players, I phones, Ect ect. Things people want, not need. And think about it for a sec. People from other countries visiting spend a average of 4 billion dollars a year here, all taxed. Illegals, taxed. The entire under ground economy, taxed. It might not be a bad thing.

Just to add that food, and possibly every-day clothing, etc., would be exempt. The average guy does not buy expensive cars, and other similar goodies. Work on it from there.

[libstaK]

The flat tax is much harder on smaller income households than higher income. If I make $100,000, and get taxed $20,000, I can still afford to live. If someone makes $10,000, and gets taxed $2,000, they wouldn't be able to even feed themselves every day.

Why not have a tax free threshold on Income Tax - If you don't already, do you?

The point of that is to ensure that those earning under for example, $20,000 don't get taxed at all as they are "below the poverty line" in terms of cost of living? Therefore if you earned $100,000 you would get $20,000 tax free (just like everyone else), and pay tax on $80,000 - it would be completely fair and equal.

Apologies if I appear ignorant, not my country but putting it out there just in case ...

[Indiogene]

Wall street should never be left outside government regulations, the laws meant to curb fraud and corruption, and corporations are held accountable for their actions, to demand lower taxation rates to make extra money is very despicable. The government rather make the middle class pay more for taxes instead of the wealthiest 1% in control of 85% of this country's total wealth.

This weekend, expect the whole country to be swamped by protests and demonstrations not only limited to Wall Street, I'm concerned on Native American groups will too air their grievances on their plight as a minority group and Veterans Administration organize their own protests about a lack of proper assistance for returning Iraq/Afghanistan veterans...all from now (Oct. 7th to the 13th or 17th).

The US government proven itself to only concentrate interests in elite profiteering, not the living standards and welfare of its citizenry in a time of great economic crisis. The ultimate result is the American public seize confidence in their leaders and lose their trust in banks, corporate careers and the country in whole. The threat of a government shutdown or an official default remains real.

Edited October 7, 2011 by DeMikeDe

[WoIverine]

Wall street should never be left outside government regulations, the laws meant to curb fraud and corruption, and corporations are held accountable for their actions, to demand lower taxation rates to make extra money is very despicable. The government rather make the middle class pay more for taxes instead of the wealthiest 1% in control of 85% of this country's total wealth.

This weekend, expect the whole country to be swamped by protests and demonstrations not only limited to Wall Street, I'm concerned on Native American groups will too air their grievances on their plight as a minority group and Veterans Administration organize their own protests about a lack of proper assistance for returning Iraq/Afghanistan veterans...all from now (Oct. 7th to the 13th or 17th).

The US government proven itself to only concentrate interests in elite profiteering, not the living standards and welfare of its citizenry in a time of great economic crisis. The ultimate result is the American public seize confidence in their leaders and lose their trust in banks, corporate careers and the country in whole. The threat of a government shutdown or an official default remains real.

The wealthy politicians and their CEO buddies control all of the rest of us, so until they're kicked out, the middle class will always shoulder the burden, which also keeps them in power over us. The more money the middle class has, the less control the upper class has.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Spid3rCyd3

[BlindMessiah]

Morning BM

This is actualy not true. The tax, from every plan Ive seen, wouldnt include nesessary Items. Milk wouldnt get the tax. Its TV's DVD players, I phones, Ect ect. Things people want, not need. And think about it for a sec. People from other countries visiting spend a average of 4 billion dollars a year here, all taxed. Illegals, taxed. The entire under ground economy, taxed. It might not be a bad thing.

Just to add that food, and possibly every-day clothing, etc., would be exempt. The average guy does not buy expensive cars, and other similar goodies. Work on it from there.

That's good, but what about during a recession. In times of recession, when people stop buying luxury goods, the government would have no source of income.

[BlindMessiah]

Why not have a tax free threshold on Income Tax - If you don't already, do you?

The point of that is to ensure that those earning under for example, $20,000 don't get taxed at all as they are "below the poverty line" in terms of cost of living? Therefore if you earned $100,000 you would get $20,000 tax free (just like everyone else), and pay tax on $80,000 - it would be completely fair and equal.

Apologies if I appear ignorant, not my country but putting it out there just in case ...

That's how it currently works with the tax free threshold. Above the threshold is progressive though, not flat.

[Damrod]

It still boils down...at some level...to our sense of what is valuable. Until we can have some sort of shift in the paradigm that "stuff"...be it wealth or possessions...is the source of happiness and fulfillment...we are going to have these envy-based issues.

What would I personally like to see? I'd like to see a return to simple principles of "Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" wherein a person is basically assured the "needs" of life...aka food, shelter and medical treatment and beyond that they can go on and follow whatever brings them joy and contributes to the community. If they want "more" then they must do more and work harder/smarter...but the basics are tied to "life" and should be a given.

Conversely, we have so many contradictory ideals about the "right to life" in these political debates...There are those that want to protect a fetus and yet once it's born, they would let it starve or die homeless or lock it up in a government institution...what is wrong here? The "right to life"...if present in the womb, must be present throughout the entire life...or the whole idea is hypocrisy.

The Wall Street Protests, if nothing else, may at least challenge a larger part of the world population to question themselves about what they hold valuable and precious and why they think that way...can't hurt...self reflection is generally a good thing...and to change the world...you must first change yourself.

[preacherman76]

That's good, but what about during a recession. In times of recession, when people stop buying luxury goods, the government would have no source of income.

Well fair tax or not, government must dramaticaly cut spending. So much so that they could even save money.

[preacherman76]

It still boils down...at some level...to our sense of what is valuable. Until we can have some sort of shift in the paradigm that "stuff"...be it wealth or possessions...is the source of happiness and fulfillment...we are going to have these envy-based issues.

What would I personally like to see? I'd like to see a return to simple principles of "Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" wherein a person is basically assured the "needs" of life...aka food, shelter and medical treatment and beyond that they can go on and follow whatever brings them joy and contributes to the community. If they want "more" then they must do more and work harder/smarter...but the basics are tied to "life" and should be a given.

Conversely, we have so many contradictory ideals about the "right to life" in these political debates...There are those that want to protect a fetus and yet once it's born, they would let it starve or die homeless or lock it up in a government institution...what is wrong here? The "right to life"...if present in the womb, must be present throughout the entire life...or the whole idea is hypocrisy.The Wall Street Protests, if nothing else, may at least challenge a larger part of the world population to question themselves about what they hold valuable and precious and why they think that way...can't hurt...self reflection is generally a good thing...and to change the world...you must first change yourself.

Not that this has anything to do with this conversation, but that is complete BS. People who believe in the right to life, do alot for children. Not only that, but believe adopting children should be free, instead of costing several thousands of dollars.

[ninjadude]

Life isn't always fair. Gotta suck it up and make the best of it. Most people are victims of their own poor life choices.

That was in reference to taxes which is not a "life choice". Apparently you would be in favor of UNfair taxes. The poor pay more than the rich. How is that working out for you?

[ninjadude]

Just to add that food, and possibly every-day clothing, etc., would be exempt. The average guy does not buy expensive cars, and other similar goodies. Work on it from there.

sounds like a slippery slope argument. A bunch not taxed as essential, then a bunch more, then etc etc until finally nothing is.

[ninjadude]

What would I personally like to see? I'd like to see a return to simple principles of "Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" wherein a person is basically assured the "needs" of life...aka food, shelter and medical treatment and beyond that they can go on and follow whatever brings them joy and contributes to the community.

That'd be great in a utopian kind of way, but unfortunately not everyone sees the same basic "needs" the same way. In fact, wildly differently.

[Damrod]

Not that this has anything to do with this conversation, but that is complete BS. People who believe in the right to life, do alot for children. Not only that, but believe adopting children should be free, instead of costing several thousands of dollars.

Nah...not BS...but whatever you need to tell yourself to accept the suffering of others...that's fine...And...it is relevant to the conversation...it has to do with the capacity to support and provide for oneself and for others ...i.e. "What is the value of a human life?"...everything to do with it actually.

That'd be great in a utopian kind of way, but unfortunately not everyone sees the same basic "needs" the same way. In fact, wildly differently.

Well I'm talking about the basic needs for life...people can pretend there is more to it if they like, but I'm talking specifically about what is needed to sustain life in a "flesh shell"...Food, water, clothing, shelter and medical treatment for illness and injury...I'm pretty sure these would be on anyone's list for what is "needed" for sustaining "life"...some will add different things toward a fulfilling life but that is not what I am talking about.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Damrod

[preacherman76]

Nah...not BS...but whatever you need to tell yourself to accept the suffering of others...that's fine......i.e. "What is the value of a human life?"...everything to do with it actually.

It is total BS. Id know, Im on the front lines of this battle.

[BlindMessiah]

Morning BM

This is actualy not true. The tax, from every plan Ive seen, wouldnt include nesessary Items. Milk wouldnt get the tax. Its TV's DVD players, I phones, Ect ect. Things people want, not need. And think about it for a sec. People from other countries visiting spend a average of 4 billion dollars a year here, all taxed. Illegals, taxed. The entire under ground economy, taxed. It might not be a bad thing.

I was just reading about Cain's plan, who I know you don't support, but is being endorsed by the Americans for Fair Taxation (source), and it does include taxation on necessary food products.