Americans favor Occupy Wall Street far more than Tea Party

Monster Rain

I think the point you missed is that people who aren't paying any federal income taxes are complaining that people who pay over 1/5 of their income to the federal government (and it's higher if they don't have deductions) aren't paying their fair share. Yes, people pay sales tax, state income tax, property tax, etc if they live in a state that has those taxes, but so do everyone else (and depending on the income tax laws of the state they live in, the people paying no federal tax may not be paying state income tax, either, even if their state has one).

I'm not in favor of a flat tax, but I do think it's a bit hypocritical to pay no federal income tax and complain that someone else's taxes aren't higher. How about we solve the problem another way: keep taxes where they are, cut the budget, and keep making cuts until it's balanced.

inmytree wrote:

someone says "but if you are poor, and pay no taxes" and I say "I'm pretty sure the poor pay taxes"...yeah, I guess I missed something somewhere...

Indifference

Pay my college tuition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc

blueandwhite

The wealthy pay more than their share; but that makes sense when you consider that they take more than their share too.

Despite complaints about federal income tax, the tax rates are relatively flat when you consider how quickly you reach the top income bracket. The problem is, there are far too many individuals who don't come close to that.
The idea that we need to put a greater tax burden on the poor is absurd. These people literally don't earn enough money to live. A flat tax rate would simply bankrupt the government at a faster rate as the bottom 50% have virtually nothing to give. Taxation has always been about curbing the abuses of private citizens who aim to monopolize the markets and consume all of a nations assets. With the lame-duck federal government you have in the US, this hasn't been too hard to accomplish.

unsung

Indifference wrote:

Pay my college tuition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc

What an idiot.

blueandwhite

unsung wrote:

Indifference wrote:

Pay my college tuition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc

What an idiot.

This is great pop journalism. The interviewer is clearly more articulate and far more prepared than his subject. It's the same kind of garbage we see on CNN, Fox MSNBC, and even John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. It's entertaining, but it doesn't really demonstrate anything other than the fact you can always find a fool in a crowd.

brianlux

blueandwhite wrote:

The wealthy pay more than their share; but that makes sense when you consider that they take more than their share too.

As an aside I would add that small business owners generally pay more than their share as well. My wife and I are self-employed, are in a relatively low income bracket (not poor but well below the median) and pay about 1/3 of our income to state and federal taxes. I wouldn't mind that at all to tell the truth if more of my tax money was being spent to feed and house the poor, give everybody at least basic health care and do everything possible to at least slow global warming and solve other environmental problems (which is partly why we tithe our income to environmental and social justice organizations- to make up what our tax dollars don't do).

The whole system is messed. But that's just the opinion of someone who is in the "elite".

blueandwhite

brianlux wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:

The wealthy pay more than their share; but that makes sense when you consider that they take more than their share too.

As an aside I would add that small business owners generally pay more than their share as well. My wife and I are self-employed, are in a relatively low income bracket (not poor but well below the median) and pay about 1/3 of our income to state and federal taxes. I wouldn't mind that at all to tell the truth if more of my tax money was being spent to feed and house the poor, give everybody at least basic health care and do everything possible to at least slow global warming and solve other environmental problems (which is partly why we tithe our income to environmental and social justice organizations- to make up what our tax dollars don't do).

The whole system is messed. But that's just the opinion of someone who is in the "elite".

I'm sorry to inform you, but you don't exactly sound like you're part of the so-called "elite".

There is a huge difference between the corporate elite and the countless small business owners who are simply trying to make things work. Heck, there are rich and poor small business owners, just like there are rich and poor working families. I've been watching the us debt clock and I find it interesting to note that while corporate assets are rising at an alarming rate, both small business assets and household assets are dropping just as dramatically. Small businesses aren't running Wall Street, nor are they in control of Washington. That being said, I find it fascinating that so many business owners empathize with Wall Street and condemn anybody else who has fallen on hard times. I just don't understood why some Americans are so quick to attack the poor who essentially have nothing while giving the super rich a free pass.

brianlux

blueandwhite wrote:

I'm sorry to inform you, but you don't exactly sound like you're part of the so-called "elite".
There is a huge difference between the corporate elite and the countless small business owners who are simply trying to make things work. Heck, there are rich and poor small business owners, just like there are rich and poor working families. I've been watching the us debt clock and I find it interesting to note that while corporate assets are rising at an alarming rate, both small business assets and household assets are dropping just as dramatically. Small businesses aren't running Wall Street, nor are they in control of Washington. That being said, I find it fascinating that so many business owners empathize with Wall Street and condemn anybody else who has fallen on hard times. I just don't understood why some Americans are so quick to attack the poor who essentially have nothing while giving the super rich a free pass.

I was being totally facetious about being "elite". That is how another poster or two have characterized me. :?

Your summation regarding the debt clock are right on the mark. Corporations continue to make huge monetary gains while the average person continues to struggle more and more. Those of us who are in small business are either sweating bullets or shitting bricks. It's a damn tough gig right now. I'm lucky in a way- I've been at the bottom so the struggle is nothing new and I've had some breaks. Not every one is faring even that well and as I've said before, unless a person is amongst the true wealthy elite, I don't know why they would not support the (mostly) peacefull OWS protests.

inmytree

Monster Rain wrote:

I think the point you missed is that people who aren't paying any federal income taxes are complaining that people who pay over 1/5 of their income to the federal government (and it's higher if they don't have deductions) aren't paying their fair share. Yes, people pay sales tax, state income tax, property tax, etc if they live in a state that has those taxes, but so do everyone else (and depending on the income tax laws of the state they live in, the people paying no federal tax may not be paying state income tax, either, even if their state has one).

I'm not in favor of a flat tax, but I do think it's a bit hypocritical to pay no federal income tax and complain that someone else's taxes aren't higher. How about we solve the problem another way: keep taxes where they are, cut the budget, and keep making cuts until it's balanced.

inmytree wrote:

someone says "but if you are poor, and pay no taxes" and I say "I'm pretty sure the poor pay taxes"...yeah, I guess I missed something somewhere...

No, I believe you missed my point...someone makes a false statement ("but if you are poor, and pay no taxes") and I corrected that statement...

thanks for adding your spin to it.... :thumbup:

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

I think the point you missed is that people who aren't paying any federal income taxes are complaining that people who pay over 1/5 of their income to the federal government (and it's higher if they don't have deductions) aren't paying their fair share. Yes, people pay sales tax, state income tax, property tax, etc if they live in a state that has those taxes, but so do everyone else (and depending on the income tax laws of the state they live in, the people paying no federal tax may not be paying state income tax, either, even if their state has one).

I'm not in favor of a flat tax, but I do think it's a bit hypocritical to pay no federal income tax and complain that someone else's taxes aren't higher. How about we solve the problem another way: keep taxes where they are, cut the budget, and keep making cuts until it's balanced.

inmytree wrote:

someone says "but if you are poor, and pay no taxes" and I say "I'm pretty sure the poor pay taxes"...yeah, I guess I missed something somewhere...

No, I believe you missed my point...someone makes a false statement ("but if you are poor, and pay no taxes") and I corrected that statement...

thanks for adding your spin to it.... :thumbup:

Yep, paying sales tax with your welfare $ should count.

I guess I didn't see what you were saying because I mentioned specifically income tax and the poster responded to my post, so I'm pretty sure he was talking about income tax.

And the bottom line is still ... is it really difficult to see a majority of Americans being ok with more taxes on the top 1%...hell, the top 20%...maybe the top 40%? If you are just looking for a simple majority, it's pretty easy to see.

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

Yep, paying sales tax with your welfare $ should count.

I guess I didn't see what you were saying because I mentioned specifically income tax and the poster responded to my post, so I'm pretty sure he was talking about income tax.

And the bottom line is still ... is it really difficult to see a majority of Americans being ok with more taxes on the top 1%...hell, the top 20%...maybe the top 40%? If you are just looking for a simple majority, it's pretty easy to see.

cincy, my point is this: folks have bought into this claim that "47% of folks pay no taxes"...it's turned into a talking point that is completely wrong...I know you think federal income tax was implied...I simply saw the statement as someone repeating a false talking point....

I understand you don't feel the wealthy should pay more in taxes....I do...in fact, I'd be ok with paying a little more taxes myself.....

fact of business something needs done...cutting everything is not going to help the situation...right now we are paying the bills rung up during the 2000's...I know that's hard for folks to understand...and to accept...

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

I understand you don't feel the wealthy should pay more in taxes....I do...in fact, I'd be ok with paying a little more taxes myself.....

Actually, I don't believe anyone should pay more taxes until the prove they will use it wisely and stick to a budget.

It's convenient to spend your way into a big mess and then come out and say..."well, we are in too big a mess now to just do it with spending, so let's raise some taxes too". The problem is, it could be true. I think the whole tax code needs reworked not just upping the % on some people. Obama's plan will end up hitting the upper-middle class the hardest in my opinion, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I understand you don't feel the wealthy should pay more in taxes....I do...in fact, I'd be ok with paying a little more taxes myself.....

Actually, I don't believe anyone should pay more taxes until the prove they will use it wisely and stick to a budget.

It's convenient to spend your way into a big mess and then come out and say..."well, we are in too big a mess now to just do it with spending, so let's raise some taxes too". The problem is, it could be true. I think the whole tax code needs reworked not just upping the % on some people. Obama's plan will end up hitting the upper-middle class the hardest in my opinion, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.

I think we are pretty much on the same page on some things...I agree the tax code does need revamped....tax loopholes need closed...

as for the budget thing...that's so subjective I really don't know how that can really happen...but I support that notion....

however, the credit card is due and it needs paid...I just don't think grandma, the disabled, and the poor are in the best position to help....

Monster Rain

He said "income tax" in his post, not that they don't pay any tax at all. Nobody would assume he meant that there are people going around getting waivers for sales tax when they go to the store. How would the cashier know who has to pay and who doesn't? What about the self-checkeout at Home Depot? How would that work? We all pay sales tax, property tax, etc. if those taxes apply in our state. This discussion has focused on the federal government, so when he says "no income tax" it is safe to assume it means "federal income tax." It seems like you want to pick apart the omission of the word "federal" that doesn't change the meaning of what was written and somehow twist it to mean that he said they don't pay sales tax or other taxes rather than address the actual point. About 47% of people who file tax returns didn't pay any federal income tax. Not a single dollar. Yet those same people are complaining that other people aren't paying "their fair share." Well, what do you consider to be their fair share? 40%? 50%?

Let's say the government raises taxes on the wealthy. Do you think any of that extra tax money will wind up making its way to everyone else? No, that will go towards bullshit. The rest of us won't be getting an extra check from the government with that money. Our taxes won't be lowered. Our employers won't magically be able to give us better raises. What might happen, though, is the people taking on the extra tax burden will decide to offset the decrease in their take-home pay by not buying some of the luxury items they want (like a new car or boat) or they won't decide to remodel a room in their house that they were thinking about changing. Now, some people might read this and think, "Who gives a carp? They don't need those things." True, they don't. BUT, their purchases of those items and their hiring of contractors to do work directly impact the economy in their area. If they don't buy that car or boat, there's a salesperson missing out on that commission. And if it's a boat, there's a marina missing out on the income from the storage of that boat, the winterizing of the boat, etc. If they don't remodel a room, there's a contractor not getting a job and workers not getting paid. I've seen these things first hand. My girlfriend's cousin works at a marina and this winter will be the 2nd in a row that he'll be laid off. He's worked for his employer for years and was never laid off before, but now their customers are cutting back and keeping their boats at their homes for the winter rather than paying the marina to take care of it. Their boat sales have dropped to almost nothing and they may decide to not sell them anymore. I know contractors who used to be very busy doing jobs in large homes who have seen that work dry up in spite of doing quality work and customers having told them that they were going to have more work for them in other areas of their homes or the jobs requested are suddenly much smaller than originally mentioned. Now, they say that they are holding off on that work to save money because of the economy. The only time a large job comes through is when it's something that needs immediate attention. Raise their taxes and watch what happens to the work they want done on their homes. In an uncertain economy, people are going to save for their future regardless of how much they make because they don't want to risk not being able to pay their mortgages or property taxes and lose their homes. If they have a goal of saving $X and their take-home pay is lowered by taxes, their percentage of disposable income goes down. Sure, they "suffer" by not having some things they want, but others suffer by not getting the income they need and that has a ripple effect on everyone.

inmytree wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

I think the point you missed is that people who aren't paying any federal income taxes are complaining that people who pay over 1/5 of their income to the federal government (and it's higher if they don't have deductions) aren't paying their fair share. Yes, people pay sales tax, state income tax, property tax, etc if they live in a state that has those taxes, but so do everyone else (and depending on the income tax laws of the state they live in, the people paying no federal tax may not be paying state income tax, either, even if their state has one).

I'm not in favor of a flat tax, but I do think it's a bit hypocritical to pay no federal income tax and complain that someone else's taxes aren't higher. How about we solve the problem another way: keep taxes where they are, cut the budget, and keep making cuts until it's balanced.

inmytree wrote:

someone says "but if you are poor, and pay no taxes" and I say "I'm pretty sure the poor pay taxes"...yeah, I guess I missed something somewhere...

No, I believe you missed my point...someone makes a false statement ("but if you are poor, and pay no taxes") and I corrected that statement...

thanks for adding your spin to it.... :thumbup:

Monster Rain

I don't think a balanced budget is subjective at all. It's a pretty cut-and-dried concept. It wasn't that long ago that the government actually had a balanced budget, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be expected every year. Yes, people will disagree about what expenses to cut and each side will say they have things that are dealbreakers if the other side tries to touch them, but in the end there needs to be compromise and the understanding that what's popular isn't always what's best for the country. What Congress and the President have to understand is that every cut will make someone angry regardless of how small it is. Here in NJ, there have been cuts to a ton of things in order to balance the budget. People voted for Chris Christie because he promised to do that and every time something gets cut there's an uproar, but we've got to take our medicine. There were even people upset when he vetoed a $420,000 tax credit for the producers of "Jersey Shore." If there was ever something I thought would receive unanimous support, that would be it but even that made some people mad. As mad as people get when things get cut, I'd still be willing to bet that Christie gets re-elected because this state is actually moving in a direction that doesn't involve more tax increases. When it's a bragging point that there hasn't been a tax increase for 2 consecutive years, it doesn't say much for how things were before.

inmytree wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I understand you don't feel the wealthy should pay more in taxes....I do...in fact, I'd be ok with paying a little more taxes myself.....

Actually, I don't believe anyone should pay more taxes until the prove they will use it wisely and stick to a budget.

It's convenient to spend your way into a big mess and then come out and say..."well, we are in too big a mess now to just do it with spending, so let's raise some taxes too". The problem is, it could be true. I think the whole tax code needs reworked not just upping the % on some people. Obama's plan will end up hitting the upper-middle class the hardest in my opinion, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.

I think we are pretty much on the same page on some things...I agree the tax code does need revamped....tax loopholes need closed...

as for the budget thing...that's so subjective I really don't know how that can really happen...but I support that notion....
however, the credit card is due and it needs paid...I just don't think grandma, the disabled, and the poor are in the best position to help....

Go Beavers

cincybearcat wrote:

This doesn't surprise me at all.

When almost 50% of people don't pay any income tax and still like having roads, schools, military, police force, welfare, etc.... it's not hard to see why they would support OWS.

It's tougher to force the government to look closely at it's spending than it is to look at who has money and make them give more to the goverment.

The 47% is in reference to people not paying federal income tax. You should probably learn more about where federal income tax money goes vs. where local and state taxes go (schools, roads, police etc). Many of the 47% are still paying local and state tax, which I hope you could figure out.

Monster Rain

Does the US Department of Transportation not pay for any roads? Does the Department of Education do nothing for our schools or help people afford college? Do states not receive funding from the Department of Homeland Security to assist with state and local law enforcement?

Go Beavers wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

This doesn't surprise me at all.

When almost 50% of people don't pay any income tax and still like having roads, schools, military, police force, welfare, etc.... it's not hard to see why they would support OWS.

It's tougher to force the government to look closely at it's spending than it is to look at who has money and make them give more to the goverment.

The 47% is in reference to people not paying federal income tax. You should probably learn more about where federal income tax money goes vs. where local and state taxes go (schools, roads, police etc). Many of the 47% are still paying local and state tax, which I hope you could figure out.

mikepegg44

Inmytree...do you ask for clarification about payroll taxes when everyone and their mother claims GE pays no tax? Because they paid payroll taxes...

I have never seen anyone do that...You had to know I was referring to income tax, and if you didn't you weren't following too closely. I suppose you could have asked for clarification instead of assuming I was an idiot who doesn't understand that people pay state and local taxes. i live in minnesota, I understand better than most that people pay state and local taxes... AND THEN assuming that I wanted to "squeeze blood from a turnip"... But I suppose when we are discussing a group protesting corporate involvement in government, namely the federal government on a national stage, I should have clarified and also qualified every statement made in relation to all the states that all the people who might support them might be from...
the point of what I tried to add to the discussion was to say...not only will the support fade as it gets taken over, considering 40% of the people in this country supported the tea party at the beginning back in 2009, but also that yes it makes sense, considering that 47% of people don't pay INCOME taxes it would lend to the belief that roughly half of the country would be in strong support of a group of people who are seen as taking on the richest 1% of the population and would like to see INCOME TAX RATES raised on those people...Considering the writer of the article needed to make comments about how we "don't live in a tea party nation after all" don't you think it is a valid point?

inmytree

Monster Rain wrote:

He said "income tax" in his post, not that they don't pay any tax at all. Nobody would assume he meant that there are people going around getting waivers for sales tax when they go to the store. How would the cashier know who has to pay and who doesn't? What about the self-checkeout at Home Depot? How would that work? We all pay sales tax, property tax, etc. if those taxes apply in our state. This discussion has focused on the federal government, so when he says "no income tax" it is safe to assume it means "federal income tax." It seems like you want to pick apart the omission of the word "federal" that doesn't change the meaning of what was written and somehow twist it to mean that he said they don't pay sales tax or other taxes rather than address the actual point. About 47% of people who file tax returns didn't pay any federal income tax. Not a single dollar. Yet those same people are complaining that other people aren't paying "their fair share." Well, what do you consider to be their fair share? 40%? 50%?

Let's say the government raises taxes on the wealthy. Do you think any of that extra tax money will wind up making its way to everyone else? No, that will go towards bullshit. The rest of us won't be getting an extra check from the government with that money. Our taxes won't be lowered. Our employers won't magically be able to give us better raises. What might happen, though, is the people taking on the extra tax burden will decide to offset the decrease in their take-home pay by not buying some of the luxury items they want (like a new car or boat) or they won't decide to remodel a room in their house that they were thinking about changing. Now, some people might read this and think, "Who gives a carp? They don't need those things." True, they don't. BUT, their purchases of those items and their hiring of contractors to do work directly impact the economy in their area. If they don't buy that car or boat, there's a salesperson missing out on that commission. And if it's a boat, there's a marina missing out on the income from the storage of that boat, the winterizing of the boat, etc. If they don't remodel a room, there's a contractor not getting a job and workers not getting paid. I've seen these things first hand. My girlfriend's cousin works at a marina and this winter will be the 2nd in a row that he'll be laid off. He's worked for his employer for years and was never laid off before, but now their customers are cutting back and keeping their boats at their homes for the winter rather than paying the marina to take care of it. Their boat sales have dropped to almost nothing and they may decide to not sell them anymore. I know contractors who used to be very busy doing jobs in large homes who have seen that work dry up in spite of doing quality work and customers having told them that they were going to have more work for them in other areas of their homes or the jobs requested are suddenly much smaller than originally mentioned. Now, they say that they are holding off on that work to save money because of the economy. The only time a large job comes through is when it's something that needs immediate attention. Raise their taxes and watch what happens to the work they want done on their homes. In an uncertain economy, people are going to save for their future regardless of how much they make because they don't want to risk not being able to pay their mortgages or property taxes and lose their homes. If they have a goal of saving $X and their take-home pay is lowered by taxes, their percentage of disposable income goes down. Sure, they "suffer" by not having some things they want, but others suffer by not getting the income they need and that has a ripple effect on everyone.

you say: "He said "income tax" in his post"

He didn't...

right, but if you are poor, and pay no taxes at all and are asked a question about a group that is perceived to be taking on the evil 1%...wouldn't it also make sense that they would support that movement.... So if half don't pay taxes and about half are supportive of the movement...

It isn't about the right or wrong of the tax code, it was more about establishing direct correlation between the amount of people who don't pay taxes and the amount of people who are supportive of the OWS movement.

doesn't that make sense?

since you can't get facts straight I didn't read the remainder if your post....

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

He said "income tax" in his post, not that they don't pay any tax at all. Nobody would assume he meant that there are people going around getting waivers for sales tax when they go to the store. How would the cashier know who has to pay and who doesn't? What about the self-checkeout at Home Depot? How would that work? We all pay sales tax, property tax, etc. if those taxes apply in our state. This discussion has focused on the federal government, so when he says "no income tax" it is safe to assume it means "federal income tax." It seems like you want to pick apart the omission of the word "federal" that doesn't change the meaning of what was written and somehow twist it to mean that he said they don't pay sales tax or other taxes rather than address the actual point. About 47% of people who file tax returns didn't pay any federal income tax. Not a single dollar. Yet those same people are complaining that other people aren't paying "their fair share." Well, what do you consider to be their fair share? 40%? 50%?

Let's say the government raises taxes on the wealthy. Do you think any of that extra tax money will wind up making its way to everyone else? No, that will go towards bullshit. The rest of us won't be getting an extra check from the government with that money. Our taxes won't be lowered. Our employers won't magically be able to give us better raises. What might happen, though, is the people taking on the extra tax burden will decide to offset the decrease in their take-home pay by not buying some of the luxury items they want (like a new car or boat) or they won't decide to remodel a room in their house that they were thinking about changing. Now, some people might read this and think, "Who gives a carp? They don't need those things." True, they don't. BUT, their purchases of those items and their hiring of contractors to do work directly impact the economy in their area. If they don't buy that car or boat, there's a salesperson missing out on that commission. And if it's a boat, there's a marina missing out on the income from the storage of that boat, the winterizing of the boat, etc. If they don't remodel a room, there's a contractor not getting a job and workers not getting paid. I've seen these things first hand. My girlfriend's cousin works at a marina and this winter will be the 2nd in a row that he'll be laid off. He's worked for his employer for years and was never laid off before, but now their customers are cutting back and keeping their boats at their homes for the winter rather than paying the marina to take care of it. Their boat sales have dropped to almost nothing and they may decide to not sell them anymore. I know contractors who used to be very busy doing jobs in large homes who have seen that work dry up in spite of doing quality work and customers having told them that they were going to have more work for them in other areas of their homes or the jobs requested are suddenly much smaller than originally mentioned. Now, they say that they are holding off on that work to save money because of the economy. The only time a large job comes through is when it's something that needs immediate attention. Raise their taxes and watch what happens to the work they want done on their homes. In an uncertain economy, people are going to save for their future regardless of how much they make because they don't want to risk not being able to pay their mortgages or property taxes and lose their homes. If they have a goal of saving $X and their take-home pay is lowered by taxes, their percentage of disposable income goes down. Sure, they "suffer" by not having some things they want, but others suffer by not getting the income they need and that has a ripple effect on everyone.

you say: "He said "income tax" in his post"

He didn't...

right, but if you are poor, and pay no taxes at all and are asked a question about a group that is perceived to be taking on the evil 1%...wouldn't it also make sense that they would support that movement.... So if half don't pay taxes and about half are supportive of the movement...

It isn't about the right or wrong of the tax code, it was more about establishing direct correlation between the amount of people who don't pay taxes and the amount of people who are supportive of the OWS movement.

doesn't that make sense?

since you can't get facts straight I didn't read the remainder if your post....

reply to my post above please