ACORN Playing Behind Scenes Role in 'Occupy' Movement

[Assured]

Tax increases aren't going to fix the deficit... tax increases will reduce employment levels and drive up prices... you will have less working individuals to tax, and people will have less money to buy the goods supporting the jobs. It's really not a great idea. Reducing tax stimulates job growth and spending ...

No, they won't - you need spending cuts also, of course.

But I'll drag out that old tired phrase again - you don't quit your full-time job to get a part time one, when you owe money. You keep your full-time job and cut spending, of course. You might even get an additional job (increase your revenue) to make sure you get it paid down.

But quitting your full-time job wouldn't enter your mind. Nor should we be even talking about reducing tax rates. It's insanity, and in a context in which everyone's tax rates will be going up anyway (the Bush tax cuts are set to expire according to budget rules because they are unsustainable), cutting the upper brackets means the rest of us will pay even more than we were going to!

But yes, everyone's rates will go up and spending will be cut. That is going to happen. The top 1%, however, don't want to be part of the "everyone" and that just isn't fair, nor will it be good for the economy because extra money that this group gets will be saved and not spent. It is the demand generated by the rest of us spending that will create jobs. 10 years of the Bush tax cuts proved that cutting the upper brackets doesn't stimulate the economy. Demand (generated by the rest of us) stimulates the economy. What's good for most will then be good for all.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Assured

[~candice~]

If you think that you can increase revenue by increasing tax ... have you really really studied this?

If there is 15% unemployment with say 10% income tax, v's 5% unemployment with 8% income tax, which scenario gets in more revenue?

Tax increases mean price increases and a drying up of the few jobs that are left.

[Isaiah 6:8]

No, they won't - you need spending cuts also, of course.

But I'll drag out that old tired phrase again - you don't quit your full-time job to get a part time one, when you owe money. You keep your full-time job and cut spending, of course. You might even get an additional job (increase your revenue) to make sure you get it paid down.

But quitting your full-time job wouldn't enter your mind. Nor should we be even talking about reducing tax rates. It's insanity, and in a context in which everyone's tax rates will be going up anyway (the Bush tax cuts are set to expire according to budget rules because they are unsustainable), cutting the upper brackets means the rest of us will pay even more than we were going to!

But yes, everyone's rates will go up and spending will be cut. That is going to happen. The top 1%, however, don't want to be part of the "everyone" and that just isn't fair, nor will it be good for the economy because extra money that this group gets will be saved and not spent. It is the demand generated by the rest of us spending that will create jobs. 10 years of the Bush tax cuts proved that cutting the upper brackets doesn't stimulate the economy. Demand (generated by the rest of us) stimulates the economy. What's good for most will then be good for all.

It was an across the board cut, not just for the upper brackets, that is simply not true. It was the same percentage cut, and of course its a larger dollar amount at a higher bracket but its still the same percent. It was never a "Tax Cut for the Rich"

Also, Spending needs to be cut, majorly. However, we need to research other sources of revenue such as selling things. If this was a household budget we would need to do what I did, and that is sell everything not nailed down.

Another source of revenue, is the people who are not paying taxes that are owed. Many many people have not paid the taxes they are owed and they are not paying. There are untapped millions there for instance.

Again cutting spending is the major issue, one that people fight over as no one wants to cut there own pet projects and that is on both sides of the board.

[Assured]

If you think that you can increase revenue by increasing tax ... have you really really studied this?

If there is 15% unemployment with say 10% income tax, v's 5% unemployment with 8% income tax, which scenario gets in more revenue?

Tax increases mean price increases and a drying up of the few jobs that are left.

I have studied Economics, yes, but not taxation - LOL! Fiscal policy, yes (which includes taxation of course), but not, "how much tax are you likely to encourage without people trying to evade it" at a certain level.

But to a certain extent, I don't care. I don't think it is fair to reduce wealthy people's rates any more. I say this because they got a 30 point cut at the upper end over a 30 year period. (We just weren't supposed to notice.) That is a substantialtax cut, and that is enough. Any more and the rest of us are going to get hit with crippling Federal taxes (including the consumption taxes that Isaiah mentioned) that will lower our individual standard of living and cut into our collective ability to provide demand for good and services, which will depress the economy further. These are the kinds of things that I have studied in school. I knew that "W" did not use good fiscal policy, and we have the proof - cutting taxes did not work. The 90's were marked by high unemployment in everything but dot coms in Silicon Valley. President Clinton did an across the board tax hike shortly after taking office in 1993 and there was a recovery that was stimulated in part by a fully-funded government that helped to generate demand for goods, services and most importantly, labor. If you want to restructure government, don't do it when aggregate demand is at an all-time low, and unemployment is high. That is the time for the government to use fiscal policy (taxing and spending) carefully and responsibly. But deficit reduction needs to be a priority as well, so now is definitely no time to be cutting revenue.

So Isaiah I agree with you that spending cuts will be needed in order to reduce the deficit, in spite of our slow economy. So if poor people will be on their own a little more, it doesn't make sense to take what little money that they have. Just let them be a little bit more on their own. But it is beyond cruel to cut things like Medicaid and Food Stamps and to ALSO tax them more heavily and leave them to starve. Also as I mentioned the economy will come to a screeching halt, because these people spend every penny.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Assured

[Guest shiloh357]

But I'll drag out that old tired phrase again - you don't quit your full-time job to get a part time one, when you owe money.

You know why it is a tired old phrase??? Partly because it simply isn't true and is not analogous to what cutting taxes means. Yet kyou will trot it out because you have nothing else. You will keep bringing up the same worthless solutions that have proven to not work because you don't want to face facts.

Cutting taxes is not analogous to quitting your full time job and taking a part time. Cutting taxes RAISES revenue. It raises revenue because it puts more money in the hands of the tax payer to spend AND it makes for a much more job creating environment. When employers create more jobs, they naturally pay more in taxes by virtue of having more to pay taxes on. They build more stores and that is good for the contstruction industry. More employees means more people who can buy houses, cars, eat out at expensive restauraunts and take expensive vacations. It means that people have more buying and investing power. It means they have money they can put in a savings account, which will bear interest (that they will pay taxes on).

You keep your full-time job and cut spending, of course. You might even get an additional job (increase your revenue) to make sure you get it paid down.

But quitting your full-time job wouldn't enter your mind. Nor should we be even talking about reducing tax rates. It's insanity, and in a context in which everyone's tax rates will be going up anyway (the Bush tax cuts are set to expire according to budget rules because they are unsustainable), cutting the upper brackets means the rest of us will pay even more than we were going to!

Lowering taxes cannot be referenced through that type of analogy. The analogy is not comparable to the reality. Cuting taxes gives you more money in your pocket not less; so it is not analogous to quitting your job, which gives you less money, not more.

Lowering taxes is more akin to to raise at your job. Just as a raise puts more money in your pocket to spend, in the same way, lower taxes gives the taxpayer money to spend and gives businesses an incentive to grow and build (thus creating more revenue).

But yes, everyone's rates will go up and spending will be cut. That is going to happen. The top 1%, however, don't want to be part of the "everyone" and that just isn't fair, nor will it be good for the economy because extra money that this group gets will be saved and not spent. It is the demand generated by the rest of us spending that will create jobs. 10 years of the Bush tax cuts proved that cutting the upper brackets doesn't stimulate the economy. Demand (generated by the rest of us) stimulates the economy. What's good for most will then be good for all.

Here is a little dose of reality for you. The top 1% have legal loopholes and ways to get around everything. They will be the top 1% and nothing will change that. They were the top 1% before the Bush tax cuts and they will be the top 1% long after those cuts expire.

My life will not improve if they pay more than they are paying now in taxes. It will not change anything except that they will simply retaliate by not starting any new companies not hiring any new people to their existing companies in the US. Instead they will start up new businesses in other countries. Many already have been doing that. They even have their money in overseas bank accounts. They have options and ways around paying "their fair share." So if you think raising taxes is going to do any good, you are living in a liberal fantasy land. All that your ideas will do is make it harder for all of us to find jobs. Stop biting the hand that feeds you and live in reality. We need the richest 1% to help create the jobs. Yeah, they get away with things they shouldn't and one day they will pay the piper, but I have to live my life and I don't have time to police what everyone else is paying taxes.

LIke I said, if you don't like how much you are paying then by all means, write a check out out to the government for what you think you ought to be paying; but, keep your hands off of my money.

[Matthitjah]

I'm wondering how a thread on OWS and ACORN being behind it got involved in taxation policy?

Can anyone say, "Misdirection?"

[Assured]

I'm wondering how a thread on OWS and ACORN being behind it got involved in taxation policy?

Can anyone say, "Misdirection?"

I am suggesting (you don't have to agree) that the taxation policies being proposed by candidates (Herman Cain) and members (Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor) of the GOP present an attitude that is hostile to the middle and lower classes. Campaign money coming from corporations and wealthy individuals appears to have fueled proposed taxation policies that will skew the playing field even more. But it is already pretty bad, because labor is taxed much more heavily (25 or 35%) than investment (15%). That just isn't fair.

But once again, you don't have to agree. Just pointing to something that people might protest about, because it is a true inequity.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Assured

[Assured]

I'm wondering how a thread on OWS and ACORN being behind it got involved in taxation policy?

Can anyone say, "Misdirection?"

I am suggesting (you don't have to agree) that the taxation policy being proposed by candidates (Herman Cain) and members (Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor) of the GOP present an attitude that is hostile to the middle and lower classes. Campaign money coming from corporations and wealthy individuals appears to have fueled proposed taxation policies that will skew the playing field even more. But it is already pretty bad, because labor is taxed much more heavily (25 or 35%) than investment (15%). That just isn't fair.

But once again, you don't have to agree. Just pointing to something that people might protest about, because it is a true inequity.

There is no such thing as "fair." I find it ironic when people today talk about taxes. It is like this country has forgotten that one of the things it was founded on was no taxation without representation and we have it all over the place. My taxes go to pay for things I don't support. Planned Parenthood. Welfare. Foreign aid. That is not "fair," but I don't get much choice in the matter. Business gets taxed more because they make more. There is nothing unfair about that. Your supposed inequity is no inequity at all.

The OWS isn't about taxes. It isn't about Capitalism. It has not escaped a good many of us that when this whole charade began, you had a bunch of dis-infranchised losers milling around in a protest, but they didn't know what they were protesting or why. That didn't come till later when some people began asking questions and suddenly a list of demands appeared. They were not there in the beginning because the people who were behind this "movement," ACORN, Michael Moore, etc., just whipped up a bunch of useful idiots and wash-outs and got them to show up en masse and whine about how unfair America is, and yet they are squatting in a park and having their needs met while they do nothing. The only reason this movement exists is to foment civil unrest. The people camped out in the park getting 3 squares a day while they whine about how unfair life is like a bunch of 60's hippies don't realize that but the people behind it sure do. They may as well have just borrowed "Tune in, Turn on, Drop out" as their rallying cry. There is nothing new under the sun.

I do think we should stop penalizing labor though, by taxing it at a higher rate than investment. People who work for a living pay up to 35% (soon to be 39%) of their earnings, but if they only live off their investments they pay just 15% and that's it. I would like to see a sliding scale on tax rates for capital gains, with 15% as the floor, instead of the flat 15%. But you're right - taxes often go toward things that we as individuals don't support. But wealthy people who don't have to work shouldn't be getting a free ride when it comes to being subject to an income tax that the rest of us have to pay. They don't pay an income tax at all! It's like paying an income tax is for suckers or something. This is why I am somewhat sympathetic toward this idea that there are inequities in the system. I would like to see them corrected.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Assured

[Matthitjah]

I'm wondering how a thread on OWS and ACORN being behind it got involved in taxation policy?

Can anyone say, "Misdirection?"

I am suggesting (you don't have to agree) that the taxation policies being proposed by candidates (Herman Cain) and members (Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor) of the GOP present an attitude that is hostile to the middle and lower classes. Campaign money coming from corporations and wealthy individuals appears to have fueled proposed taxation policies that will skew the playing field even more. But it is already pretty bad, because labor is taxed much more heavily (25 or 35%) than investment (15%). That just isn't fair.

But once again, you don't have to agree. Just pointing to something that people might protest about, because it is a true inequity.

What does that have to do with ACORN's involvement with OWS?

[Assured]

Washington Post Opinion Piece

I'm wondering how a thread on OWS and ACORN being behind it got involved in taxation policy?

Can anyone say, "Misdirection?"

I am suggesting (you don't have to agree) that the taxation policies being proposed by candidates (Herman Cain) and members (Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor) of the GOP present an attitude that is hostile to the middle and lower classes. Campaign money coming from corporations and wealthy individuals appears to have fueled proposed taxation policies that will skew the playing field even more. But it is already pretty bad, because labor is taxed much more heavily (25 or 35%) than investment (15%). That just isn't fair.

But once again, you don't have to agree. Just pointing to something that people might protest about, because it is a true inequity.

What does that have to do with ACORN's involvement with OWS?

I provided a link above, to an opinion piece that I have just read -- it came in my email.

It is entitled: "The study that shows why Occupy Wall Street struck a nerve"

Quoting from it:

The hard-right conservatives who dominate the Republican Party claim to despise the redistribution of wealth, but secretly they love it — as long as the process involves depriving the poor and middle class to benefit the rich, not the other way around.

That is precisely what has been happening, as a jaw-dropping new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office demonstrates. Three decades of trickle-down economic theory, see-no-evil deregulation and tax-cutting fervor have led to massive redistribution...

So I am not the only one who feels that past tax policies, and current proposed tax policies are fueling the fire.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Assured