Can someone explain "Occupy Wall Street"

[spideygirl]

<p>LasMa

Lower marginal tax rates are actually correlated to stunted job growth (and GDP). This has been studied, going back to the inception of the income tax. Here are the facts; the methodology is in the linked article.</p>

<p>*Quote:
In those years where the top tax rate was 70% or above, GDP growth averaged 9.0% and job growth averaged 2.6%. Conversely, in those years where the tax rate was 40% or below, GDP growth was an anemic 4.4% and job growth was… well actually there was no job growth. The average for the 37 years where top tax rates were the lowest, job growth averaged zero.
<a href=“http://thecivildiscourse.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2011/04/22/the-relationship-between-tax-rates-job-growth/[/url][/i]”>http://thecivildiscourse.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2011/04/22/the-relationship-between-tax-rates-job-growth/*&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I know you don’t want this to be true, but do you have any actual FACTS to refute it?

How about losing the incorrect assumption that you actually passed on a link (article by Bryan Ganz) that contains valid facts? </p>

<p>Ganz

Armed with all of this data, I then wanted to see what happened to job growth and GDP growth in both high top marginal tax rate periods and low top marginal tax rate periods.

This is such a misleading historical comparison, and what is more amazing is that many people with a particular agenda are republishing it all over the internet as if it is some magic bullet against the lower tax rate argument.<br>
Ganz is fixated on MARGINAL TAX RATES because it serves his purpose, yet his comparison says nothing. There are many variables (tax credits, deductions, etc.) that impact EFFECTIVE TAX RATES. You have to keep those constant and redo all the numbers and see what you get. </p>

<p>Go and get those numbers, Lasma, and get back to me. Look back on how many loopholes used to exist compared to today and factor that in. However, when you come back I am going to tell you that, while you are doing better in terms of comparing apples to apples, you are going to ignore much more important numbers. Look into how much the federal government has taken out of the private economy over the past one hundred years, as a percentage of GDP. </p>

<p>Ganz

I am no class warrior, however, as Willie Sutton famously said when asked why he robbed banks – “That’s where the money is.” Raising taxes on individuals earning more than $5.0, million, $10 million or even $25 million a year may not in and of itself solve the problem, but it would surely help….

How much will it actually help? Let’s see some stats on that. Before you run off and spend time on this, I can assure you, not very much.<br>

The Obama administration’s budget projections claim that raising taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers, those individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 or more, will increase revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise…. Tax revenues as a share of GDP have averaged just under 19%, whether tax rates are cut or raised. Better to cut rates and get 19% of a larger pie.

[W</a>. Kurt Hauser: There’s No Escaping Hauser’s Law - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952.html]W”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952.html)

Official government numbers on tax collections (direct revenues) as a percentage of our total economy (GDP).</p>

<p>Notes:
-Revenues rose to the standard 18% in 2006-8 despite Bush tax cuts
-Revenues are projected to increase to 17% in 2012 despite no anticipated increase in tax rates.
-Revenues are down in 2009, 2010 & 2011 because of the recession—not tax cuts

• 1987: Reagan top tax rate: 28% —> Revenue 18%
• 1995: Clinton top tax rate: 39.6% —> Revenue 18%
• 2007: Bush top tax rate: 35% —> Revenue 18%

[The</a> Michael Medved Show;](<a href=“http://www.michaelmedved.com/pages/taxrevenue]The”>http://www.michaelmedved.com/pages/taxrevenue)</p>

[floridadad55]

<p>Not sure what any of this has to do with college admissions, and the responses have been mostly political, but let me give an opposing view:</p>

<p>The stats simply do not support the position that the top one percent are not paying their fair share. If you look at those stats, you will see that the reverse is actually true. </p>

<p>I am not rich, so I don’t have a horse in this race, but we saw what happened in Cuba when you try to reign in the rich. If you ask the people whether it is a good idea to tax the rich and take their money, of course they will say yes, but soon, the rich will be destroyed, and then the poor will be worse off than before.</p>

<p>The truth is that the only way to substantially close the deficit and avoid going the way of Greece is to make real budget cuts. America is borrowing 40 percent of every dollar it spends, yet the politicians can’t even agree on a ONE percent cut. The bottom 50% of the people pay ZERO income taxes. It is actually the bottom 50% who are not paying their fair share.</p>

<p>Now, even if a rich guy making $1,000,000 is only paying 25% instead of 36%, he is STILL paying $250,000 a year, which to me, is still enough to constitute his “fair share”. Let’s say that guy is a surgeon. How many years did he go to school while he made zero. How long did it take after becoming a doctor before he started making BIG money. </p>

<p>Also, many rich people make charitable donations, which while not technically “taxes”, are similar. I was at Johns Hopkins recently, and they had a wall with the names of people who had each contributed something like $7 million to the school.</p>

<p>While from a political standpoint, it will be hard to get the democrats to agree to spending cuts without raising taxes on the rich, the truth is that the idea that the rich are not paying their fair share is a canard. </p>

<p>The workers at a factory may think “it would be great if we could simply eliminate the owner of the factory and divide his money among ourselves”, but what they forget is that there wouldn’t even BE a factory to work in if it wasn’t for the hard work and entrepenurial dreams of that “evil” rich guy.</p>

<p>Lincoln himself said that you don’t help the poor by dragging down the rich guy.</p>

[spideygirl]

<p>[The</a> War on Wealth Isn’t Just Stupid – It’s Wrong - Michael Medved - Townhall Conservative](<a href=“http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2011/08/10/the_war_on_wealth_isnt_just_stupid_--_its_wrong/page/full/]The”>http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2011/08/10/the_war_on_wealth_isnt_just_stupid_--_its_wrong/page/full/)</p>

<p>

The only way to overcome the traditional populist preference for “the people over the powerful” is through impassioned affirmation of another long-standing national value: the conviction that beneficial behavior deserves better results and more encouragement than destructive, damaging courses of action. Americans may not favor rich over poor, but they certainly don’t prefer the irresponsible to the productive, or the hapless over the helpful.</p>

<p>When you consider people who’ve created wealth and built beautiful lives for their families, it’s natural and healthy to want to emulate them. But it’s profoundly unhealthy to want to annihilate them.</p>

<p>After all, the rich in this country for the most part do precisely what we hope all Americans will do with their lives: working hard, earning money, paying taxes, and spending or investing what’s left. Industrious pursuit of profit remains the best way to stimulate recovery and prosperity, and most people understand that we should welcome, not discourage, the continuation of this pattern.</p>

<p>Government policies on taxes and spending inevitably impact private decisions of every sort, and sanity and decency both demand rewarding helpful choices while discouraging hurtful options. We tax tobacco heavily, and those burdens have played an undeniable role in dramatically reduced smoking rates. At the same time, we spend lavishly with subsidized loans and outright grants to promote college education and fifty years of those federal and state subsidies nearly tripled the percentage of young people pursuing higher education.</p>

<p>…it makes no sense to penalize people with higher tax rates who toil ceaselessly to claw their way up the economic ladder. Their effort and imagination add jobs and growth while subtracting nothing from the society at large.</p>

<p>…the idea of “taxing the rich”…[ends up] taxing those who are trying to get rich. [It] won’t so much impact the “millionaires and billionaires” who draw…derision as it will cripple those eager strivers who hope someday to become millionaires and billionaires. The federal tax authorities don’t go after wealth but rather grab their share from income, hampering earning not luxurious living.</p>

<p>This explains the puzzling predisposition of progressive plutocrats who live primarily off their investments (or who won life’s lottery with inherited fortunes like the Kennedys or Rockefellers) to favor high tax rates on top earners. It’s not really noble or unselfish for those who have already earned their pile to seek to place new obstacles on hard-driving, up-and-coming challengers who seek to enter the charmed circle of privilege.</p>

<p>Those obstacles, however, will hardly benefit the nation as a whole. Isn’t it obvious that America needs more, not fewer, millionaires? And we want the numbers of poor and dependent people to shrink, not multiply.</p>

<p>While the left tries to foment indignation against wealth-creators, conservatives should respond with outrage at the moral inversion at the core of contemporary liberalism. Though progressives trumpet “fairness” as its guiding priority there’s nothing fair about society and government conferring generous dispensations on dysfunctional, dependent conduct and onerous special burdens on those who enrich both themselves and others. It is both unwise and, at the deepest level, unjust to promote hatred and resentment where gratitude is due and to offer indulgence and support for values that require correction.</p>

<p>The Talmud sagely observes that “those who are kind when they ought to be cruel will end by being cruel when they ought to be kind.” Today’s liberal imperatives violate both practicality and ethics when they make it harder to get rich, and easier to stay poor.

</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>

My son is not an entitled brat. What a thing to say!

If he feels entitled to deprive others of their right to move freely in their own city, to hold innocent motorists hostage, and to violate the instructions of the police, then he is an entitled brat. If you’ve never been held hostage to people like that, then you have no idea what you’re talking about. I work in Times Square, I’ve been physically restrained by protestors. It is ugly, scary, inconsiderate and a huge hardship for average people. I have no respect or consideration for people doing those things. There are frequent protests in NYC, like the Falun Gong supporters, who protest safely and respectfully. One needn’t act like an animal to be heard. It’s a choice.</p>

[dstark]

<p>Hmmm…what I see is the corporate taxes as a share of gdp has trended lower…which is shocking with all the complaining.</p>

<p>The clinton tax rates led to more income tax revenues as a share of gdp…</p>

<p>The bush tax rates led to less income tax revenues as a share of gdp compared to clinton… </p>

<p>SS taxes as a share of gdp took a big jump under reagan…which is no surprise…reagan raised social security taxes…</p>

<p>[Historical</a> Source of Revenue as Share of GDP](<a href=“Statistics | Tax Policy Center”>Statistics | Tax Policy Center)</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>The thing the anti-Wall Street folks seem to forget is what percentage of the budget of NYC comes from Wall Street. The budget that provides a very generous package of benefits to city workers, assistance recipients, etc. Those of us who’ve lived here a long time know how scary downturns on Wall Street can be for things like the school system.</p>

[Dad_of_3]

<p>Spidey, I guess I have my own prejudices. If Andrew Carnegie or Henry Ford made a gazillion dollars cranking out their wares, I would have celebrated and would be leery of DC doing a better job with the money than them. </p>

<p>If a Wall Street Sharkie speculates on French banks and makes a killing, I don’t see what we gain especially since his cousin next door has just lost that and more on his Greek gamble and has his hand out to bail him out or he’ll take down the pension system or whatever. I can’t believe I’ll be on the same side as MoveOn, but wall street is talented in the opinions it can provoke.</p>

[cartera45]

<p>bethievt - be safe out there and don’t ever completely trust the police - anywhere - ever.</p>

[spideygirl]

<p>floridadad55

Not sure what any of this has to do with college admissions, and the responses have been mostly political

I disagree. I think that this thread is a debate about ideas. Well, it started as a question about a bunch of folks having a 60’s moment on Wall Street, but it evolved from there.</p>

[dstark]

<p>Real gdp growth…looks a little light over the last 10 years…the years of very low tax rates…</p>

<p>[Real</a> GDP: Year over Year Change | The Big Picture](<a href=“http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/real-gdp-year-over-year-change/]Real”>Real GDP: Year over Year Change - The Big Picture)</p>

<p>And the total debt to gdp ratio…</p>

<p>If low taxes are so great…why did the debt increase so much and gdp growth falter?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/07/21/the-total-us-debt-to-gdp-ratio-is-now-worse-than-in-the-great-depression/[/url]”>http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/07/21/the-total-us-debt-to-gdp-ratio-is-now-worse-than-in-the-great-depression/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[bethievt]

<p>zoosermom–sorry about your negative experience. Some students at Kent State had a negative experience with the National Guard back in the day. That doesn’t mean that the National Guard is evil. Most of them are wonderful people and are our kids or our neighbors’ kids hoping to do something good in the world.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>bethievt, many people work on the weekends, and the Brooklyn Bridge is a free artery between boroughs. Protesting is fine. But making that artery impassable for three hours and holding over a hundred people hostage during that time is not fine. It’s lawless, inconsiderate and dangerous. Maybe someone had to get to work, maybe someone simply had to go to the bathroom. Maybe someone had theater tickets that they had saved for and dreamed of. Those people didn’t have the right to impose their priorities on others against their will.</p>

[spideygirl]

<p>Dstark

Who is more likely to have significant capital gains?</p>

<p>Obviously the wealthiest people in society would just be peeing in their pants if they didn’t have to pay a capital gains tax…Gates, Buffett, Wynn, Ellison, etc, they would save billions.</p>

<p>Those that would benefit are those that would get bigger tax cuts than tax increases or benefit cuts….</p>

<p>Capital gains tax rates are more likely to affect the top 5 percent of the
people. 5 percent of the people own more than 95 percent of the people…

</p>

<p>“The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.”
~ President John F. Kennedy, 1963</p>

[dstark]

<p>Spideygirl what were the capital gains tax rates under kennedy?</p>

<p>They aren’t the same today…</p>

<p>When facts change…opinions should be reevaluated…</p>

<p>Who knows what kennedy or lincoln would say today?</p>

<p>I’m going to be dead and The world is going to be different in 70 years…so I am not going to have an opinion 70 years from now. ;)</p>

[bethievt]

<p>IMO, corporate America, or some of it, has been lawless, inconsiderate and dangerous. Though I do agree that getting to a bathroom in time is important.</p>

[spideygirl]

<p>dstark:

the years of very low tax rates…

You’re still sticking with your insistent focus on marginal tax rate data, to the exclusion of any other number (such as effective tax rates, or the history of deductions and tax credits)? Well, if that is the case, what can anyone possibly say? Carry on. Hopefully you are not spreading misinformation on purpose. I am going to assume it is an accident.</p>

[qdogpa]

<p>Watched a newcast from NYC, most of those protestors(not all) looked like they were living undr the George Washington Bridge for the past year…</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>

Spideygirl what were the capital gains tax rates under kennedy?</p>

<p>

Do you think Kennedy could be elected as a democrat today?</p>

[dstark]

<p>Spideygirl…what are you talking about?</p>

<p>I am using total federal income taxes as a share if gdp…</p>

<p>Post 206…I just commented on rates…</p>

<p>Did you actually look?</p>

<p>i used More exact numbers than the numbers from your links</p>

<p>Geez…</p>

[spideygirl]

<p>Ruh roh…</p>

<p>It appear that all the hoopla on Wall Street is ANYTHING BUT a bunch of concerned citizens with no particular political agenda other than to “come up with a solution”. </p>

<p>It’s cool if people want to join in, but they better know that this isn’t a 60’s sort of organically formed movement. Anything but. George Soros, The Ruckus Society…If you want to be a puppet, at least know who is holding the strings:</p>

<p>[SEIU</a> plans days of rage against Wall Street](<a href=“The Human Face of God, The Holy Veil of Manoppello | Canada Free Press”>SEIU plans days of rage against Wall Street | Canada Free Press)</p>