The Demands of Occupy Wall Street

[WinePusher]

People at occupy wall street have released unofficial lists of demands here and there. There are apparently many out there and they don't seem to correspond to eachtother, but here's one unofficial list of demands:

-Demand 1: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending Freetrade by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
-Demand 2: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
-Demand 3: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
-Demand 4: Free college education.
-Demand 5: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
-Demand 6: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
-Demand 7: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of Americas nuclear power plants.
-Demand 8: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
-Demand 9: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
-Demand 10: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
-Demand 11: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the Books. World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the Books. And I dont mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
-Demand 12: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
-Demand 13: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

http://toddkinsey.com/blog/2011/10/08/o ... f-demands/

1) What do you make of these demands? Are they reasonable or unreasonable?
2) In a list of demands seperate from this list, OWS protestors have expressed disapproval towards the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commision. Do you agree or disagree with the ruling?
3) Although absent from the list of demands, OWS have expressed disdainment towards what they percieve to be a growing gap between the top 1% of society and the remaining 99% of society. What is the truth regarding wealth and income inequality?

[JohnPaul]

I have a couple of ideas to submit which I suspect will not be very popular.

The top one percent which you condemn so loudly pays 40 percent of all taxes which support our country, while more than half of the 99% pay no taxes at all. Who is contributing more to the country? I submit that America needs that one percent far more than that one percent needs America. They could easily pick up their assets and go lounge on a beach in Tahiti and let the rest of us stew in our own juices while our starved corpses rotted in the streets and our society collapsed into the Stone Age.

I would argue that the one percent has already done this, except they are residing in gated-communities, being entertained at exclusive clubs, as well as lounging around places such as Tahiti.

By the way, your 40 percent number isn't true.[1]

OK, 39 percent then.

Your apparent belief that the one percent of achievers is somehow obligated to support the rest of us smacks more of envy than objective thought, and reminds me a little of the famous Communist ideal: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This failed in the real world because it removed all individual incentive to achieve. Why work when any excess you produce will be taken away from you and given to those who do not work?

John

[nursebenjamin]

While you are contemplating that idea, here is another. You probably believe in the principle, ONE MAN/ONE VOTE. Why not apply the same principle to taxes and distribute taxes equally? After all, this is a democracy and we are all equal, right? I don't mean the same tax RATE, but an equal dollar AMOUNT. Think of that while you are shouting about equality.

Ok, I thought about that for two seconds and decided that everyone paying equal dollar amounts would not be very fair. Look, I'm glad that some people struck it rich. But Elizabeth Warren says it best: "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own." "I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didnt have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory " and hire someone to protect against this " because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless " keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

[nursebenjamin]

Your apparent belief that the one percent of achievers is somehow obligated to support the rest of us smacks more of envy than objective thought, and reminds me a little of the famous Communist ideal: "From those according to their ability, to those according to their need." This failed in the real world because it removed all individual incentive to achieve. Why work when any excess you produce will be taken away from you and given to those who do not work?

Except, the rich were able to achieve what they did because of the society that we created. I see nothing wrong with asking the rich to pay society back a small portion of their wealth.

And I dont see anyone not willing to work. What I see are senior citizens going without lifesaving medications, children having their education opportunities slashed, our dinosaur infrastructure crumbling, and families pulling down 2-3+ jobs and still able to make a dent in their debts. Whatever we are doing in this country isnt working very well for the average Joe.

[JohnPaul]

While you are contemplating that idea, here is another. You probably believe in the principle, ONE MAN/ONE VOTE. Why not apply the same principle to taxes and distribute taxes equally? After all, this is a democracy and we are all equal, right? I don't mean the same tax RATE, but an equal dollar AMOUNT. Think of that while you are shouting about equality.

Ok, I thought about that for two seconds and decided that everyone paying equal dollar amounts would not be very fair. Look, I'm glad that some people struck it rich. But Elizabeth Warren says it best: "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own." "I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didnt have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory " and hire someone to protect against this " because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless " keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

The "hired workers" were paid the market value for their work, perhaps much more if they were unionized. As for public benefits such as roads, schools, police and fire protection, etc, they apply to everyone, not just the one percent. Why should the one percent pay any more per capita for them than the 99 percent do?
It is OK to ask them to pay based on actual usage, but anything more is discrimination and robbery. The half of the population who pay no taxes on average use much more of public services than the rich do. Let them pay for their own share of usage!

John

[JohnPaul]

Your apparent belief that the one percent of achievers is somehow obligated to support the rest of us smacks more of envy than objective thought, and reminds me a little of the famous Communist ideal: "From those according to their ability, to those according to their need." This failed in the real world because it removed all individual incentive to achieve. Why work when any excess you produce will be taken away from you and given to those who do not work?

Except, the rich were able to achieve what they did because of the society that we created. I see nothing wrong with asking the rich to pay society back a small portion of their wealth.

And I dont see anyone not willing to work. What I see are senior citizens going without lifesaving medications, children having their education opportunities slashed, our dinosaur infrastructure crumbling, and families pulling down 2-3+ jobs and still able to make a dent in their debts. Whatever we are doing in this country isnt working very well for the average Joe.

The society that "we" created? I have read estimates that only about 7% of any human society has ever been really creative. The rest are... well, the masses.
Friedrich Nietzsche said: "The common man is manure spread over the face of the earth as fertilizer so it can produce an occasional great man." This may be a little harshly expressed, but I believe it is essentially realistic and true. Incidentally, I am a fan of Ayn Rand's economic philosophy and am happy to see that a movie of her book "Atlas Shrugged" has just been released.

You don't see anyone not willing to work? Oh, please! I didn't just fall off the turnip truck on the way into town! You have either led a very sheltered life or your vision is completely obscured by your liberal blinders. I have seen what is called a "self-perpetuating underclass" in all its obnoxious detail. I could go on with story after story, but you would dismiss them all as merely anecdotal.

I do agree that whatever we are doing in this country isn't working very well!

John

[chris_brown207]

The "hired workers" were paid the market value for their work, perhaps much more if they were unionized. As for public benefits such as roads, schools, police and fire protection, etc, they apply to everyone, not just the one percent. Why should the one percent pay any more per capita for them than the 99 percent do?
It is OK to ask them to pay based on actual usage, but anything more is discrimination and robbery. The half of the population who pay no taxes on average use much more of public services than the rich do. Let them pay for their own share of usage!

John

I think nursebenjamin already covered that - they do use the public benefits more. After all - their produce has to travel on something in order for it to make it to the market. The more wealthy someone is, the more likely the source of their wealth is putting a strain on the publicly owned transit and utilities.

Look at the grooves on those highways - those didn't come from small economy cars. Those came from 18-wheelers loaded for bear.

I am becoming one of those business owners who is growing wealthy. I would be happy to be in one of those tax brackets in which I pay a larger share. (And being a business owner, I also know there are hundreds if not thousands of deductible expenses that can currently be used to effectively almost nullify the taxable income - so that guys like Warren Buffet pay lower taxes than many of his employees). Taxes should be paid as a factor of wealth. If someone owns 95% of the income, they should pay 95% of the taxes.

[JohnPaul]

The "hired workers" were paid the market value for their work, perhaps much more if they were unionized. As for public benefits such as roads, schools, police and fire protection, etc, they apply to everyone, not just the one percent. Why should the one percent pay any more per capita for them than the 99 percent do?
It is OK to ask them to pay based on actual usage, but anything more is discrimination and robbery. The half of the population who pay no taxes on average use much more of public services than the rich do. Let them pay for their own share of usage!

John

I think nursebenjamin already covered that - they do use the public benefits more. After all - their produce has to travel on something in order for it to make it to the market. The more wealthy someone is, the more likely the source of their wealth is putting a strain on the publicly owned transit and utilities.

Look at the grooves on those highways - those didn't come from small economy cars. Those came from 18-wheelers loaded for bear.

I am becoming one of those business owners who is growing wealthy. I would be happy to be in one of those tax brackets in which I pay a larger share. (And being a business owner, I also know there are hundreds if not thousands of deductible expenses that can currently be used to effectively almost nullify the taxable income - so that guys like Warren Buffet pay lower taxes than many of his employees). Taxes should be paid as a factor of wealth. If someone owns 95% of the income, they should pay 95% of the taxes.

Paying taxes based on income or wealth may sound good to dedicated liberals, and may be necessary in the real world, but I believe the only "fair" way would be taxes based on usage of services. Incidentally, I believe that those with 95% of the income on total do pay far more than 95% of the taxes.

I am glad you are "growing wealthy." My own venture into a small business with my wife a few years ago managed to produce expenses which far more than wiped out any potential profit. A friend is now running a small business which she loves, but is costing her more than $20,000 a year of her own money just to keep alive. I believe this is true of many small businesses. People are enchanted with the idea of running a small store, selling handicrafts, etc, but soon learn a very expensive lesson. I assume your business is more substantial than that!

John

[chris_brown207]

Paying taxes based on income or wealth may sound good to dedicated liberals, and may be necessary in the real world, but I believe the only "fair" way would be taxes based on usage of services. Incidentally, I believe that those with 95% of the income on total do pay far more than 95% of the taxes.

I don't know if I am one of those "dedicated liberals", I am still trying to figure out what I am, but I would totally support a "pay as you play system". I think the current system is too loaded with opportunities to take advantage. That is how Warren Buffet can get away with having a 2010 form 1040 that looked like: Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) $62,855,038, Taxable Income: $39,814,784, Federal Income Tax $6,923,494. Dividing his Federal Income Tax by his Taxable Income results in an average tax rate of 17.4%. (Although, I would not mind at all paying that $6M in taxes with his income, I think the system stands to be overhauled)

I am glad you are "growing wealthy." My own venture into a small business with my wife a few years ago managed to produce expenses which far more than wiped out any potential profit. A friend is now running a small business which she loves, but is costing her more than $20,000 a year of her own money just to keep alive. I believe this is true of many small businesses. People are enchanted with the idea of running a small store, selling handicrafts, etc, but soon learn a very expensive lesson. I assume your business is more substantial than that!

John

Thank you, we are doing pretty good. Our business tripled in size from 2009 to 2010, and this year it looks like we are at least going to double if not triple again. We shouldn't have any trouble hitting 3/4 of a million in gross sales before the year is out.

It has been a very lean couple of years, but the sacrifices are paying off. And now we are learning about all these tax deductions that can make your income practically non-tax burdened. I think some kind of a flat sales tax, etc., is probably the way to go so more guys like Buffett (who was very honest in presenting his 1040 info like that), and hopefully some day me, will not be able to pay less taxes than the average American.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The expectation is that the more experience you put into the labor market the higher your income will be. Most employed teenagers automatically fall in the bottom 1%. Ten years down the road, they will have risen out of the bottom 1% because their income will have risen due to their experience in the labor market. This defeats the myth of income immobility.

I'm not sure how this logic is supposed to defeat the evidence. This was previously cited in this thread:

However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile.

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

Now, are you saying that because only 42% (and not 100%) will stay in the lowest quintile that income immobility is a myth? What sort of statistics of this sort would you expect actual income immobility to produce?

[WinePusher]

The expectation is that the more experience you put into the labor market the higher your income will be. Most employed teenagers automatically fall in the bottom 1%. Ten years down the road, they will have risen out of the bottom 1% because their income will have risen due to their experience in the labor market. This defeats the myth of income immobility.

I'm not sure how this logic is supposed to defeat the evidence.

Do you know what income immobility is? It's when income remains stagnate regardlesss of how much work you put into the labor market. If your income changes income immobility is not possible.

This was previously cited in this thread:

However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile.

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

Now, are you saying that because only 42% (and not 100%) will stay in the lowest quintile that income immobility is a myth? What sort of statistics of this sort would you expect actual income immobility to produce?

I don't like repeating myself. Taken from the wikipedia article, bolding mine:

Median family income has risen 29% and mean family income has risen 43%, compared to the income of the previous generation for people that were children in 1968[3]. Most of this growth in total family income can be attributed to the increasing number of women who work since male earnings have stayed relatively stable throughout this time[3]. Two thirds of those who were children in 1968 reported more income than their parents, but only half of them exceeded their parents economic standing by moving up one or more quintiles[3]. Although one third of the nation is moving up quintiles, another third is downwardly mobile " experiencing a decrease in income and economic standing compared to their parents.

Taken from what I wrote in an earlier post that you ignored:

The problem is you don't measure income according to individual people, you measure income according to households which is fallacious. Household income will rise if the number of people per household rises, and household income will decline if the number of people per household declines. Because of this, household income is not an accurate measurement of income.

Before users who don't understand basic economic concepts come running in with the intent to post nonsense, family and household income refers to the same thing.