"Occupy" protesters find support among the 1%

[Openmind]

Source: MSNBC

'Tax me, I’m good for it,' some in the richest 1 percent say in support of the protest

The “Occupy Wall Street” protesters — also known as the “99 percent” — have struck a chord with at least a few members of an unexpected audience: America’s rich and privileged.

United under the banner “We are the 1 percent: We stand with the 99 percent,” a band of entrepreneurs, trust fund babies, professionals and inheritors has taken to the web to share their abhorrence of corporate greed and support for tax code changes that would see them pay a higher share of their considerable wealth.

Among other things, they’re posting their stories on a Tumblr page created by Wealth for the Common Good and Resource Generation, two groups dedicated to working for "fair taxation and just wealth distribution."

 

[GenSeneca]

From the 'Wealth for the Common Good' website:

It’s important that we let our elected officials know that there are thousands of us who would pay more — pay our fair share — to invest in the country.

Someone should ask them why they aren't already paying higher taxes voluntarily, why higher taxation must be mandatory before they are willing to pay thier "fair share".

After all, there are no laws against giving their money away, these supposed 'millioniares' don't need a government mandate to cut a check and pay off the college loans of some spoiled brats, it's still a free'ish country.

The student loan whiners should all write to these alleged 'millioniares', tell them how much they owe in student loans, and ask for a check to cover the amount. My guess is they'd be totally ignored, not one single check would be cut, and not one single person's student loan would be paid off... voluntarily.

 

[BigRob]

Source: MSNBC

'Tax me, I’m good for it,' some in the richest 1 percent say in support of the protest

The “Occupy Wall Street” protesters — also known as the “99 percent” — have struck a chord with at least a few members of an unexpected audience: America’s rich and privileged.

United under the banner “We are the 1 percent: We stand with the 99 percent,” a band of entrepreneurs, trust fund babies, professionals and inheritors has taken to the web to share their abhorrence of corporate greed and support for tax code changes that would see them pay a higher share of their considerable wealth.

Among other things, they’re posting their stories on a Tumblr page created by Wealth for the Common Good and Resource Generation, two groups dedicated to working for "fair taxation and just wealth distribution."

"Just wealth distribution" and "see them pay a higher share of their considerable wealth." Are they wanting a "wealth" tax, or a higher "income" tax?

I am happy to pay more, when the 50% of the country that pays no federal income tax starts to participate in the process as well.

What exactly do you call these protestors who are running around demanding their student loans be forgiven etc? I call them "greedy".

By the way, posting stories from rich people who agree with a Democratic philosophy doesn't mean all that much...if I posted rich Republicans saying they disagreed, you would simply discount it I am sure.

 

[Openmind]

"Just wealth distribution" and "see them pay a higher share of their considerable wealth." Are they wanting a "wealth" tax, or a higher "income" tax?

I am happy to pay more, when the 50% of the country that pays no federal income tax starts to participate in the process as well.

What exactly do you call these protestors who are running around demanding their student loans be forgiven etc? I call them "greedy".

By the way, posting stories from rich people who agree with a Democratic philosophy doesn't mean all that much...if I posted rich Republicans saying they disagreed, you would simply discount it I am sure.

That is silly! Obviously Republicans disagree!. . .and that's the problem!
I was posting this information to demonstrate that not all the wealthy have their head up their. . .plug in the right word!

And that old canned propaganda phrase "they can just pay extra taxes if they want to," was silly the first time it was said, it is not getting any smarter!

 

[GenSeneca]

And that old canned propaganda phrase "they can just pay extra taxes if they want to," was silly the first time it was said, it is not getting any smarter!

It's still the truth, no matter how silly you think it is. Of course, if you believe it's not true, then tell us what law is preventing them from voluntarily paying higher taxes.

 

[Openmind]

It's still the truth, no matter how silly you think it is. Of course, if you believe it's not true, then tell us what law is preventing them from voluntarily paying higher taxes.

There is no law against it. . .
But obviously very few will do it, unless a "law" is written about it.

What I don't understand is why you are so proud of being such a selfish, self centered 99%er, instead of actually looking at what is good for the community we all live in.

But I guess that is the whole question between the philosophy of a Democrat and a Republican, the whole philosophy between one who as a social conscience, and one who has a dollars sign instead of a conscience.

 

[dogtowner]

That is silly! Obviously Republicans disagree!. . .and that's the problem!
I was posting this information to demonstrate that not all the wealthy have their head up their. . .plug in the right word!

And that old canned propaganda phrase "they can just pay extra taxes if they want to," was silly the first time it was said, it is not getting any smarter!

Considering the number of trust fund babies in Zuccotti Park its not hard to see that some of the wealthy are down with OWS.

 

[Dude111]

Heres a LIVE FEED from wall street!

www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

GIVE THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!

 

[dogtowner]

There is no law against it. . .
But obviously very few will do it, unless a "law" is written about it.

What I don't understand is why you are so proud of being such a selfish, self centered 99%er, instead of actually looking at what is good for the community we all live in.

But I guess that is the whole question between the philosophy of a Democrat and a Republican, the whole philosophy between one who as a social conscience, and one who has a dollars sign instead of a conscience.

The difference is more akin to how to accomplish things, is the government the answer or private means. The government is not empowered to do it Constitutionally and it is notoriously inefficient at doing things.

 

[Openmind]

The difference is more akin to how to accomplish things, is the government the answer or private means. The government is not empowered to do it Constitutionally and it is notoriously inefficient at doing things.

WHEN the private sector is ABLE or WILLING to hire people. . .that's great!

However, it is obvious that, since Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and even more since the dramatic downturn of 2008, the private sector has been either incapable or unwilling to hire people.

In that case, the only resource available is THE GOVERNMENT, to fast start the economy by providing work (especially in much needed infrastructure maintenance and repair or in services that benefit the community, such as education, security, and research) that will create jobs. . .and thus allow people to become, once again, CUSTOMERS for the good that private sectors offer!

It is obvious (if you look at the last 4 or 5 years) that the "job creators" have NOT BEEN WILLING to create jobs, no matter what. . .and who can blame them, really, since the DEMAND has been too low. . .because people who would normally purchase their products just don't have the money.

So. . .just in case you still have not understood. . .I am not for the government taking over the private sector. . .I am for the government filling in the void for jobs UNTIL the private sector can and is willing to once again hire.

And, by the way, if the government funds infrastructure jobs. . .it is not the "government employees" that will be working on the new bridges, the new roads, the new dams. . . it WILL be private corporations who will be sub-contractors for the government to work on those large infrastructure projects!

So, by refusing the "government involvement or funding," you are actually refusing those opportunities to private enterprises.

And don't tell me the private enterprises could do it without government intervention. . .if they could. . .WHY have they not done it?

 

[dogtowner]

WHEN the private sector is ABLE or WILLING to hire people. . .that's great!

However, it is obvious that, since Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and even more since the dramatic downturn of 2008, the private sector has been either incapable or unwilling to hire people.

I thought we were talking about welfare ?

The issue is justification to hire, no demand and there is no justification.

 

[Openmind]

I thought we were talking about welfare ?

The issue is justification to hire, no demand and there is no justification.

You may be talking about welfare. . .I was talking about jobs. . .and how to create them
when the private sector is unwilling or unable to do so.

And your second comment is EXACTLY what I was saying. . .it is not about how much the "job creators" could "supply," it is about how much "demand" will entice job creators to hire more. . .and it has NOTHING to do with how high or how low their taxes are. . .it has to do with how much money the majority of people (the 99%) has in its pocket to purchase goods, thus to CREATE DEMAND.

So. . .when the private sector is out of the "job creating business," it takes the government intervention to create jobs so that there will be more money is people's (the 99%, not the top 1%) pocket, so they can create demand. . .and start the economy rolling.

Then, when the private sector begins to hire because there is a demand for product. . . the government can withdraw (at least partially) from "creating jobs."

 

[dogtowner]

You may be talking about welfare. . .I was talking about jobs. . .and how to create them
when the private sector is unwilling or unable to do so.

And your second comment is EXACTLY what I was saying. . .it is not about how much the "job creators" could "supply," it is about how much "demand" will entice job creators to hire more. . .and it has NOTHING to do with how high or how low their taxes are. . .it has to do with how much money the majority of people (the 99%) has in its pocket to purchase goods, thus to CREATE DEMAND.

So. . .when the private sector is out of the "job creating business," it takes the government intervention to create jobs so that there will be more money is people's (the 99%, not the top 1%) pocket, so they can create demand. . .and start the economy rolling.

Then, when the private sector begins to hire because there is a demand for product. . . the government can withdraw (at least partially) from "creating jobs."

How do you propose the government create jobs (now that we've abandoned OWS) ?

Stimulus lke infrastructure spending ? Tried that, didnt work.
Tax credits to coax hiring ? Tried that, didn't work.
Money to states to pay union employees they could no longer afford ? Tried that, didn't work.
Add new costly regulation and expense ? Tried that, didn't work.

Or you could do whats always worked when tried as your boy Arthur Laffer showed, cut taxes.

 

[Openmind]

How do you propose the government create jobs (now that we've abandoned OWS) ?

Stimulus lke infrastructure spending ? Tried that, didnt work.
Tax credits to coax hiring ? Tried that, didn't work.
Money to states to pay union employees they could no longer afford ? Tried that, didn't work.
Add new costly regulation and expense ? Tried that, didn't work.

Or you could do whats always worked when tried as your boy Arthur Laffer showed, cut taxes.

No. . .Laffer curves ONLY shows that cutting taxes work when taxes are super high. . .which they are not! Until taxes reach a "optimal" level, taxes bring more revenues, when taxes reach that "optimal level" the revenue begin to decrease.

The insfrastructure spending, and help to the unemployed have helped us to keep out of full blown depression. If the spending has been even greater, it would have been more effective.

Our infrastructre NEEDS (even without considering the need for jobs) to be renewed and/or maintained if we are to be competitive in a world wide economy. The state of disrepair and lack of innovation of our infrastructure takes us a little further down towards 3rd world country every year.

Tax cuts for the wealthy have been in place for the last TEN YEARS, and the state of our economy for the last 8 of those last 10 years has shown that tax cuts for the wealthy DIDN"T lead to more jobs or more revenues.

 

[GenSeneca]

There is no law against it. . .

So why aren't they voluntarily paying higher taxes? Ever think to ask them?

But obviously very few will do it,

Obviously NONE of the people who claim to want to pay higher taxes are doing so voluntarily... Any reasonable person would want to find out why they aren't.

unless a "law" is written about it.

Are you admitting that a "law" will FORCE people to act in accordance with the will of the collective?

What I don't understand is why you are so proud of being such a selfish, self centered 99%er, instead of actually looking at what is good for the community we all live in.

I'm a 53%er... I actually PAY taxes and I have never demanded that someone else should have to pay more so that I can pay less or to benefit me at their expense. And stop confusing charity, which is 100% voluntary, with government programs funded by taxation, which is 100% mandatory. Again, if you're still confused, LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO WORDS!

But I guess that is the whole question between the philosophy of a Democrat and a Republican, the whole philosophy between one who as a social conscience, and one who has a dollars sign instead of a conscience.

Well, considering I'M NOT A REPUBLICAN, perhaps you are, once again, in error. As for the "social conscience", my conscience would never allow me to use government's monopoly on the legal use of force to gain a benefit at the expense of someone else, i.e., I do not demand and I will not accept that which I have not earned and therefore do not deserve.