Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderators: Mick, TheGingerMan

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby mabagal » 04 Mar 2012, 20:52

Good god. The definition of unemployment is the percent of the labor force who have been actively seeking employment for the past four weeks who cannot find it. The labor force does NOT include the retired, students or homemakers.

International Labor Organization wrote:The unemployment rate is a measure of the prevalence of unemployment and it is calculated as a percentage by dividing the number of unemployed individuals by all individuals currently in the labor force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

International Labor Organization wrote:Normally, the labor force of a country (or other geographic entity) consists of everyone of working age (typically above a certain age (around 14 to 16) and below retirement (around 65) who are participating workers, that is people actively employed or seeking employment. People not counted include students, retired people, stay-at-home parents, people in prisons or similar institutions, people employed in jobs or professions with unreported income, as well as discouraged workers who cannot find work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force

Look at that for a second. Not only do your figures not add up, but even if they did, your category of neither employed nor unemployed includes people who are "discouraged" and cannot find work for the last 4 weeks. In other words, they are not only unemployed, they are also too lazy to even look for work.

That pretty much sums up what an OWS person is.

cfimages wrote:Start taxing the rich appropriately.


And by this, you mean start punishing hard work and success? You know, in 2011 there were a record number of Americans who renounced their citizenship? If Obama has his way and dividend tax goes to parity with income, then expect that number to rise even more and for even more capital to move somewhere else. That's not going to help the situation when a huge chunk of the available investable money in the country up and goes elsewhere.
mabagal
Immune to Breathalizers (jiǔ cèce bù chūlái)
Immune to Breathalizers (jiǔ cèce bù chūlái)
 
Posts: 2061
Joined: 01 Nov 2009, 23:27
Location: Taipei
11 Recommends(s)
26 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby cfimages » 04 Mar 2012, 21:09

mabagal wrote:Good god. The definition of unemployment is the percent of the labor force who have been actively seeking employment for the past four weeks who cannot find it. The labor force does NOT include the retired, students or homemakers.



No one is claiming that. Which is why the % of employed plus the % of unemployed doesn't equal 100% of OWS supporters which is what you seem to be claiming here 47% are employed full time, 19% part time, 13-15% unemployed and the other 19-21% are retired, students etc.

cfimages wrote:Start taxing the rich appropriately.


And by this, you mean start punishing hard work and success?



No one is suggesting any punishment of hard work and success. But as it stands at the moment, the rich generally contribute a much lower percentage of tax than the poor and middle classes. There's no way anyone can justify that.
Forumosan avatar
cfimages
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8705
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 15:39
Location: Across from the other side of the road
184 Recommends(s)
185 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby mabagal » 04 Mar 2012, 21:31

cfimages wrote:and the other 19-21% are retired, students etc.


And also "discouraged people" who have been too lazy to even seek work at some point in the past month. Basically, by this your effectively unemployed figure is thus minimum 15% and up to 21+15% = 36%. That sounds more reasonable for a group of people who choose to spend their time hanging out not doing anything in a park somewhere. Occam's razor.

cfimages wrote:
cfimages wrote:Start taxing the rich appropriately.


mabagal wrote:And by this, you mean start punishing hard work and success?


No one is suggesting any punishment of hard work and success. But as it stands at the moment, the rich generally contribute a much lower percentage of tax than the poor and middle classes. There's no way anyone can justify that.


The reason this is is because investment tax is lower than ordinary income tax and the "rich" get a higher portion of their income from investment. However, the rich didn't accumulate that money to invest without at some point in the past paying full income tax rates on it. That's what OWS supporters refuse to recognize.

The reason investment tax is lower than income tax is to encourage investment of any excess cash. Raise the investment tax, and that incentive is significantly lessened. Capital will dry up or move elsewhere in the world. No capital, no jobs. No jobs, more pissed off people to go hang out in rat-infested parks to protest whatever they feel is to blame for their own failures.
mabagal
Immune to Breathalizers (jiǔ cèce bù chūlái)
Immune to Breathalizers (jiǔ cèce bù chūlái)
 
Posts: 2061
Joined: 01 Nov 2009, 23:27
Location: Taipei
11 Recommends(s)
26 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby zyzzx » 04 Mar 2012, 22:21

Ok, first of all, the median (NOT average) HOUSEHOLD (not individual) income is $49k. In 2005, median personal income was $29k, and 75% of earners (only counting people over 25 with income) earned less than $50k. 2010 per capita income in the US was $26k.
For full time workers in 2009, the median for men was 47k, but the median for women was 37k. And notice that the $47k does "delineate between full time employed or not."
Using the same measure: if 47% of OWS street folks are employed full time, and 30% of OWS folks earn more than $50k, and we assume that the high earners are employed full time, then the median salary for OWS folks who are full time workers is greater than or equal to $50k, which is indeed higher than the national median salary for full time workers.

By your rationale, 75% of society are losers? As are most women?
Maybe people are pissed because they are working hard and contributing to society, but get paid peanuts.

(based on Census data, available here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html)
Also Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States
Forumosan avatar
zyzzx
Sidewalk Geomancer (lù biān suàn mìng tān)
Sidewalk Geomancer (lù biān suàn mìng tān)
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: 04 Nov 2008, 10:18
Location: Taipei
10 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby cfimages » 05 Mar 2012, 07:33

mabagal wrote:
cfimages wrote:and the other 19-21% are retired, students etc.


And also "discouraged people" who have been too lazy to even seek work at some point in the past month. Basically, by this your effectively unemployed figure is thus minimum 15% and up to 21+15% = 36%. That sounds more reasonable for a group of people who choose to spend their time hanging out not doing anything in a park somewhere. Occam's razor.


But we know that's not the case due to the repeated, reputable polls conducted by various organizations. :wall:

cfimages wrote:
cfimages wrote:Start taxing the rich appropriately.


mabagal wrote:And by this, you mean start punishing hard work and success?


No one is suggesting any punishment of hard work and success. But as it stands at the moment, the rich generally contribute a much lower percentage of tax than the poor and middle classes. There's no way anyone can justify that.


The reason this is is because investment tax is lower than ordinary income tax and the "rich" get a higher portion of their income from investment. However, the rich didn't accumulate that money to invest without at some point in the past paying full income tax rates on it. That's what OWS supporters refuse to recognize.

The reason investment tax is lower than income tax is to encourage investment of any excess cash. Raise the investment tax, and that incentive is significantly lessened. Capital will dry up or move elsewhere in the world. No capital, no jobs. No jobs, more pissed off people to go hang out in rat-infested parks to protest whatever they feel is to blame for their own failures.


This debate has been played out in numerous threads in the past and is liable to go nowhere so I'm ended it here.
Forumosan avatar
cfimages
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8705
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 15:39
Location: Across from the other side of the road
184 Recommends(s)
185 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby fred smith » 05 Mar 2012, 11:26

Regardless of how you try to paint this, it appears to me that my assessment of a bunch of fuckwits with way too much time on their hands or the stupidity to be unable to determine how to spend any free time they have wisely stands. The OWS movement is full of lazy, unemployed, nonproductive losers. Case closed.
Forumosan avatar
fred smith
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16597
Joined: 11 Oct 2002, 17:14
55 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby cfimages » 05 Mar 2012, 12:04

fred smith wrote:Regardless of how you try to paint this, it appears to me that my assessment of a bunch of fuckwits with way too much time on their hands or the stupidity to be unable to determine how to spend any free time they have wisely stands. The OWS movement is full of lazy, unemployed, nonproductive losers. Case closed.


Well if that's what you want to believe despite all evidence to the contrary, then go right ahead.
Forumosan avatar
cfimages
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8705
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 15:39
Location: Across from the other side of the road
184 Recommends(s)
185 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby TainanCowboy » 05 Mar 2012, 13:21

fred smith wrote:Regardless of how you try to paint this, it appears to me that my assessment of a bunch of fuckwits with way too much time on their hands or the stupidity to be unable to determine how to spend any free time they have wisely stands. The OWS movement is full of lazy, unemployed, nonproductive losers. Case closed.

Well, you left out felons, rapists and registered sex-crime deviants.

But hey...wouldn't want to be "judgmental" about it....might hurt someones...feelings.... :wink:
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --- "Caesar and Cleopatra"...G.B. Shaw
-----
Kid Rock - Born Free
-----
"The big sisters are usually hot, but the dads smell of alcohol and tobacco....and have dirty feet with dead toe nails in blue slippers. "...Bob_Honest on "The Culture"
------
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
------
Isaiah 40:31

This post was recommended by ChewDawg (05 Mar 2012, 13:22)
Rating: 5.88%
Forumosan avatar
TainanCowboy
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16234
Joined: 18 Jun 2004, 17:50
Location: Tainan - The Original Taiwan
103 Recommends(s)
49 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby jdsmith » 05 Mar 2012, 13:27

The reason this is is because investment tax is lower than ordinary income tax and the "rich" get a higher portion of their income from investment. However, the rich didn't accumulate that money to invest without at some point in the past paying full income tax rates on it. That's what OWS supporters refuse to recognize.

The reason investment tax is lower than income tax is to encourage investment of any excess cash. Raise the investment tax, and that incentive is significantly lessened. Capital will dry up or move elsewhere in the world. No capital, no jobs. No jobs, more pissed off people to go hang out in rat-infested parks to protest whatever they feel is to blame for their own failures.


Yup. Taxing capital gains is an unnecessary kick in the nuts to the small time investor. The companies themselves are taxed, AND the dividends are taxed AND the capital gains are taxed. But I suppose if one doesn't work, or doesn't bother to participate in capitalism, well, the capital gains tax increase means fuckall to them. That millions of working people don't see this adversely affecting their IRAs is amazing. This alone is enough to vote against Oblahblah. :thumbsup:
Your warning level: [1]
Forumosan avatar
jdsmith
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 14855
Joined: 05 Jan 2005, 10:40
Location: Always.
56 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby fred smith » 05 Mar 2012, 14:27

JD Smith:

How dare you ask others to take responsibility for themselves, their investments and their lives! It makes me so mad when people like you write like that. I just want to go out and protest.... if only I did not have this damned job that kept me busy 60 hours or more a week and when and if I do get my vacation time... gosh three weeks in Buenos Aires seems to be a lot more appealing then heading to the streets to live with louse-infested fuckbags to protest The Man. Am I missing out on something here? like logic? rationality? sanity? responsibility? integrity?
Forumosan avatar
fred smith
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16597
Joined: 11 Oct 2002, 17:14
55 Recognized(s)

6000

PreviousNext




Return to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 6 visitors

If you believe in forever, then life is just a one-night stand -- RIGHTEOUS BROTHERS, "Rock & Roll Heaven"