"Occupy" turning to violence

[Greenday]

Yeah, 'cause wanting the top earners to pay an equitable percentage of their income in line with the percentages paid by those at the bottom is "taking people's money away."

^-.-^

You argue percentages, the top 1% can argue numbers. Why should they have to pay so much more just because they make more? Sounds unfair.

[Hyena Dandy]

They should pay more because they can afford to pay more. That seems pretty fair to me. Pay what you can afford.

[Andara Bledin]

You argue percentages, the top 1% can argue numbers. Why should they have to pay so much more just because they make more? Sounds unfair.

Why should they be allowed to pay so much less because they make more?

It's not like those who make less get a break on, say, how much tax they pay when they buy a car. They don't get a break on how much tax they pay when they go to the movies. So why the hell do those who make more get a break on paying their share, especially since the income tax is supposed to be a luxury tax. What possible justification can you have for putting the greatest burden of a luxury tax on those who are able to afford the least luxuries?

So, no, you can't honestly argue that they're paying "so much more." They're making "so much more," so they can pony up and pay their fair share - exactly the same as those who make less.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

So just because they are more successful monetarywise, they should be forced to give up a lot more money? Sounds like you just want to punish people for doing well.

[Hyena Dandy]

Yes, because they have more money, they should be made to give up more money. That is how taxes WORK.

What would you propose instead?

[Nyoibo]

There is no punishment, if you earn 1,000,000 and pay 50% exactly the same as someone who earns 100,000 and pays 50% you're still 10 times better off whether you both pay 10%, 25%, 50%, what ever, there is no punishment, it is however fair.

[Greenday]

There is no punishment, if you earn 1,000,000 and pay 50% exactly the same as someone who earns 100,000 and pays 50% you're still 10 times better off whether you both pay 10%, 25%, 50%, what ever, there is no punishment, it is however fair.

Having to pay $500,000 while someone else only has to pay 1/10 of that is not fair.

[Andara Bledin]

Having to pay $500,000 while someone else only has to pay 1/10 of that is not fair.

If someone only makes 1/10 of that, it's absolutely and eminently fair.

I just don't understand the abject whinging and outright greed from people who can best afford to pay the taxes they should owe. Seriously, what a pack of poor winners crying about not being able to keep more than their fair share.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

If someone only makes 1/10 of that, it's absolutely and eminently fair.

I just don't understand the abject whinging and outright greed from people who can best afford to pay the taxes they should owe. Seriously, what a pack of poor winners crying about not being able to keep more than their fair share.

^-.-^

A fair share is what you work for and what you earn. A bunch of people standing around in a city whining that life isn't fair haven't earned what I've earned through hard work and effort.

[Andara Bledin]

A bunch of people standing around in a city whining that life isn't fair haven't earned what I've earned through hard work and effort.

A gross generalization with no data to back it up.

While it's quite probable that many if not most of the protesters have not worked as hard as you have, you can't say that there aren't protesters who have worked just as hard, if not harder.

And they're not whining that life isn't fair. The fact that you think that belies either a lack of understanding of some of the primary issues at hand, or a general lack of understanding of how allowing such issues to continue unchecked could do irreparable economic harm to this nation and potentially the entire world.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

And they're not whining that life isn't fair.

Just because they don't use those exact words doesn't mean it's not what they mean. These people hate capitalism. We don't live in a utopia. We don't live in a pure communist society and quite frankly, I'm glad. Otherwise, why would I work twelve hour days seven days a week? What incentive would I have? This is life as we know it and they are complaining that it's not fair.

[Nyoibo]

Having to pay $500,000 while someone else only has to pay 1/10 of that is not fair.

Then we shall use your logic, the person who earns 1,000,000 pays 50,000, we'll make it fair for everyone, everyone now pays 50,000 regardless of what they make, have fun.

As to the protesters not having worked hard, a couple of stats of the people involved in OWS

This is taken from a sample of around 1,600 respondants processed so far

50% work full-time
20% work part-time
13% unemployed
1/3 are over 35
1/5 are over 45
35% have a college degree
21% have postgrad degrees

And before you ask Linky link

[Greenday]

You do realize those people polled were people who visited the website, not those protesting? Also, the answers to questions are going to greatly be skewed because who does the polls? People who visit the website. Who visits the website? People who actually believe in their protests.

[Hyena Dandy]

A fair share is what you work for and what you earn. A bunch of people standing around in a city whining that life isn't fair haven't earned what I've earned through hard work and effort.

I thought we were talking about tax burden? You changed the subject.

These people hate capitalism.

Some do. A lot of them don't. Very few I met said they wanted to live in a communist society.

Also, the answers to questions are going to greatly be skewed because who does the polls? People who visit the website. Who visits the website? People who actually believe in their protests.

Also, I totally don't get where you're going with that

[Panacea]

You argue percentages, the top 1% can argue numbers. Why should they have to pay so much more just because they make more? Sounds unfair.

Two reasons.

The first is because that's how taxes have worked since the dawn of time. Rulers have always known you can't get blood from a stone. The rich have always paid more in taxes to maintain the government, though the poor of course also often paid crushing taxes (hence the source of many peasant revolts).

But the primary modern reason is because the wealthiest 1% reap the most benefit from the way the laws are written. Often overlooked is the vast corporate welfare that the wealthy get. For example, the fact that states can now use eminent domain to seize private property to sell to developers, even if that property is well maintained, just to "improve the tax base." NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

GW Bush used these laws to make his fortune. He used the power of eminent domain to seize land the owners did not want to sell to build football stadiums in Texas. (He didn't get rich as an oilman; he failed at that).