Occupy, What are they trying to do?

[Gravekeeper]

I am. Numbers matter to me.

You're arguing nebulous figures? .....Why? Or did that not come out right? -.-

[Rapscallion]

I am. Numbers matter to me.

I don't see what you're saying here.

GK said he wasn't arguing nebulous figures. You said you were and then the next sentence said that numbers meant to you. Er, what?

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

part of the "fuck you, I got mine" is the ones who "got theirs" have made it a pipe dream for anyone else to "work their way up from the bottom".

I was looking for an entry-level job anywhere at one point, just something to get my foot in the door, so I could eventually work my way up. Everywhere wanted a 2 year degree, $7 an hour retail clerk, REQUIRED an associate's degree, asst manager for a grocery store, secretary, file clerk, receptionist-all REQUIRE college degrees now-didn't when the current 1% was was working their way up. The "American dream" has become just that, a dream, trying to actually attain it is a nightmare.

case in point:

a few years ago I wanted to take classes to get my "medical laboratory technician" certification-it was a 9 month course and only part-time, so I could still work and pay my bills while getting it, didn't quite work out at that time(husband was in school). I just looked into going back now, 3 years later, program has changed, it's no longer offered, in it's place is an associate's degree program, full time(15 hours in class, 19 hours in lab) tuition would run about $8,000.00 total(which would be covered by federal student loans), and with the way classes are scheduled there's no way I can work a job that will pay enough to pay my rent, food, and phone(my only necessities), my job offers tuition reimbursement, but unless I only go part time(which kills financial aid), I can't keep working. I'm stuck in a catch-22. I can't move up without a degree, but can't get a degree without moving up(I have to have a better paying job to be able to set aside the money to live on while I attend school, private loans are out as I owe over $10,000.00 in medical bills). In short, I'm stuck at the bottom of the class structure, forever.

[Greenday]

You're arguing nebulous figures? .....Why? Or did that not come out right? -.-

I don't see what you're saying here.

GK said he wasn't arguing nebulous figures. You said you were and then the next sentence said that numbers meant to you. Er, what?

Rapscallion

It matters to me because using terms like "them" and "they" is baffling to me. No clear choice of who should pay more. The argument that people who make more should pay more is just too generic to me. At what point is the cutoff? Where do you say, "You make too much, pay a shitload more!"?

[Andara Bledin]

It's simple: People who make over $1,000,000.00 a year pay a lower percentage of taxes than people who make less than $100,000.00 a year.

In some cases, they actually pay a smaller dollar figure, depending on how they structure their tax shelters.

Where do you say, "You make too much, pay a shitload more!"?

We're not saying that. What is being said is "You make more than enough to be comfortable, you should at least be paying the same rate as the family that is barely able to pay their rent."

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

We're not saying that. What is being said is "You make more than enough to be comfortable, you should at least be paying the same rate as the family that is barely able to pay their rent."

let's do some maths to illustrate for general reference:

I pay almost a fourth of my income in taxes(25%), which leaves me with about $15,000 to live on.(these are rounded figures)
My rent alone is about $11,000 of that.
which leaves $4,000, divide by 12=about $300 per month.
Electricity=$50/month
Phone=$50/month
payment on collections(medical bills from when I lacked insurance)=$100/month

that leaves me with a whopping $25 a week for food.


Someone that makes $1,000,000 pays about $170,000 leaving them $830,000 to live on. divide that by 12=$70,000/month.


now let's switch I'm now taxed at 17% I now have an extra $3,000 a year or an extra $250 a month, which makes a HUGE difference to me.

Mr./Ms. millionaire now has 62,500 per month not a huge difference for him/her.

People that make less than $100,000 per year are at almost double the tax rate of those that make $100,000 per month.

If someone makes my yearly salary in a month, why am I penalized and forced to pay more of my income in taxes than they are?

[Andara Bledin]

If someone makes my yearly salary in a month, why am I penalized and forced to pay more of my income in taxes than they are?

Don't forget how much of a difference for everybody those extra taxes would make for the government?

^-.-^

[mikoyan29]

I remember a few years ago when it was Kerry Vs. Bush and one of the issues that came up was how his wife only pays about a 15% tax rate. It didn't stay an issue long as the Republicans realized that number showed just how messed up the tax code is. One of the interesting things about Reagan was that yes he lowered taxes but he kept the taxes on Capital Gains at the same rate as taxes on everything else. to me that is fair because it is the separate rate on Capital gains where the tax code starts to get wonky.

[bara]

I that number showed just how messed up the tax code is.

Im of the opinion that if a fifth grader that gets good grades cant figure it out then its to complicated.

Im not saying we need to dumb ourselves down. Im saying we need to use plain language and text and stop the double talk when it comes to legislation. As it stands even most college graduates would have a hell of a time figuring it out.

[AdminAssistant]

President Clinton was on The Daily Show last night pimping his new book, but while he was there he was talking about the tax code when he was President and changes that need to be made. He put it all in simple language and explained it in a way that the average person could understand. That tells me two things: 1) President Clinton is awesome at communicating ideas to an audience and 2) these complicated ideas can be broken down in a simpler way. But who would want to do that and actually *gasp* educated the American people?

[mikoyan29]

Did he explain why there is a disparity between the Capital Gains and other income? I believe it was on his watch that happened.

[AdminAssistant]

If I remember correctly, the reduce in the capital gains rate was a compromise to get the budget balanced. He originally agreed to set the rate at 20%, and in exchange a number of other measures were passed, like the HOPE tax rebate and some kind of child healthcare program. It was eventually set at 15%, which he thought was far too low, but it was a compromise that he agreed on since he was working with a Republican Congress. Last night he also said that the government should be willing to invest in businesses IF, and only if, that money goes directly to job creation.

[Gravekeeper]

The reduction in capital gains tax is part of the Bush tax cuts, hence why it was such a stink from the GOP when it came around for expiration. Basically, Bush 1.0 raised taxes on the top tiers and it cost him re-election. Clinton took that ball and ran with it, he did same thing and it led to the best economy you had in a while. Then this little dick move occurred:

"In a major blow to the inheritance tax – America's most progressive form of taxation – the GOP cuts nearly doubled the amount that the rich could pass on to their heirs tax-free. From now on, the first $1 million would be exempt from federal taxes – unless your estate was worth more than $17 million. In those rare cases, the superwealthy would have to pay taxes on their entire inheritance.

Then something strange happened. Due to a "drafting error," the final bill failed to include the exception for the superwealthy. Everyone in both parties agreed that it had been a mistake. But instead of fixing the error, Republicans blocked a pro forma correction to the law – meaning that even the wealthiest estates would pay no taxes on the first $1 million. The move effectively secured an $880 million tax cut for the rich – one that Congress never intended, and never voted for."

Republicans + a few dick Democrats passed the tax cuts with a veto-proof majority against Clinton. After that point, Clinton blocked every single tax cut proposal the GOP made till the end of his term.

Then Bush 2.0 expanded spending immensely with two wars, of course, but he also cut taxes op the top tiers significantly especially on capital gains. Your economy has since turned back to the shitter as a result.

[Canarr]

Again, beautifully put by Rayne: http://leasticoulddo.com/comic/20111109

[Gravekeeper]

Again, beautifully put by Rayne: http://leasticoulddo.com/comic/20111109

That's about right. -.-

Also, here we go again in So Cal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ&

What in the world is the provocation for that? These are Berkley student protestors on their own campus on a side note. I've never seen the 2 handed "spear" tactic before, that seems quite a bit more damaging than a baton swing. If not dangerously so. A few shots like that in the gut could cause some serious harm.

Are they trying to cause a riot? >.>