Occupy Detroit

[Detroitnerd]

Yes, I'm so mad that Bill Gates and other people created stuff and got rich off of it. We shouldn't allow people to get rich and instead should take Bill Gates 40 Billion dollars and evenly spread it out between all Americans so we can be $133 richer and destroy all incentive to make and do things in this country.

Well, look back to the 1950s and 1960s, when the tax rate for the highest earners were a confiscatory 91 percent. Did high earners simply stop working because of this "disincentive"? No! In fact, they were still fabulously wealthy. The difference was we had enough money for schools, police, fire, pensions, social programs, etc...

[Scottathew]

Well, look back to the 1950s and 1960s, when the tax rate for the highest earners were a confiscatory 91 percent. Did high earners simply stop working because of this "disincentive"? No! In fact, they were still fabulously wealthy. The difference was we had enough money for schools, police, fire, pensions, social programs, etc...

Not a snotty question, but what tax structure do you call for? I'd honestly like to know because I still haven't fully formulated an opinion on the subject.

I'm for repealing the Bush tax cuts, and I think it's ridiculous that the middle class cuts were held hostage to cuts for the rich.

[gnome]

hmm, you are pointing to the 1950's tax rate as an example of economic success while not mentioning the massive recession toward the decade's end? Forgetting that Kennedy slashed tax rates to get the ecomony moving?

Please don't insult people by selectively using historical data points.

[Detroitnerd]

hmm, you are pointing to the 1950's tax rate as an example of economic success while not mentioning the massive recession toward the decade's end? Forgetting that Kennedy slashed tax rates to get the ecomony moving?

Please don't insult people by selectively using historical data points.

Stick to the question: Did high taxation specifically and significantly remove the incentive of high-earners to make money?

Please don't insult people by moving the target and claiming they're a poor shot.

[Detroitnerd]

Not a snotty question, but what tax structure do you call for? I'd honestly like to know because I still haven't fully formulated an opinion on the subject.

I'm for repealing the Bush tax cuts, and I think it's ridiculous that the middle class cuts were held hostage to cuts for the rich.

If I could do anything, I'd like to cut through the last 40 years of propaganda about "job-creators" and "free markets" and "Laffer curves."

Progressive taxation seems a good idea. I don't make a lot of money, but I don't need a lot of servicing from the government either. The more money you have, the more you need police and fire departments to protect your investments. The larger a company you run, the more you use the roads or subsidized air freight for shipping. The bigger an employer you are, the more you require educated people, educated at public expense, to work for you. It only makes sense that the larger your income or wealth, the more you should contribute to the social systems that make it possible. Even if it's just capital gains, who paid to keep society running smoothly while somebody sat on something that eventually rose in value?

In short, I'd say to the extremists who cling to Reaganomics: We get it. You don't like taxes. The more taxes go down, the more and more y'all complain ... about taxes. Well, sorry. Y'all gotta pay. Unfortunately, nobody has discovered a way to fund the common welfare of the nation, indeed to build it up at all, by voluntary contribution.

[j to the jeremy]

Stick to the question: Did high taxation specifically and significantly remove the incentive of high-earners to make money?

Please don't insult people by moving the target and claiming they're a poor shot.

And,....boom, goes the dynamite....

[Det_ard]

Stick to the question: Did high taxation specifically and significantly remove the incentive of high-earners to make money?

Yes*.

* In that it created a large incentive to make money in ways that were taxed at lower rates than 91%. Enter real estate and oil and gas tax shelters, deferral of income, investing in offshore companies, transfer pricing schemes, etc. The problem is that these are all value-destroying activities from an economic point of view. Effort is expended to keep the kelptocratic taxman at bay but no value is created from that effort, beyond the legal minimization of taxes.

The real estate crash of '86 was due to the undoing of some rules that made certain real estate investments attractive for tax purposes. Real estate crashed because the tax system had been distorting the normal market function of allocating investment capital.

Be careful what you wish for, the higher the tax rate the more incentive there is for non-economic, value-destroying [[legal) tax avoidance schemes.

On top of that, who's going to burn the midnight oil, sacrificing time with friends and family to build their entrepreneurial empire if they're only going to keep 9% [[or less after state, local and fica tax) of each additional dollar they make?

[Detroitnerd]

Yes*.

No.

Your argument is that it removed incentives to produce value, not make money.

I do like, however, the way you've shown that, even with that high rate of taxation, the rich were still fabulously wealthy.

[Mikeg]

Well, look back to the 1950s and 1960s, when the tax rate for the highest earners were a confiscatory 91 percent. Did high earners simply stop working because of this "disincentive"? No! In fact, they were still fabulously wealthy. The difference was we had enough money for schools, police, fire, pensions, social programs, etc...

Historical data shows that after the top marginal income tax rate of 91% was reduced during the Kennedy Administration to 77% in 1964, Federal Individual Income Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP actually increased several percentage points over the next four years.

Also, most of us taxpayers are smart enough to know that back then [[and for the most part, even today), state and local revenues - not federal revenues - were used to fund that kind of stuff.

Nice try, thanks for playing!

[Detroitnerd]

Historical data shows that after the top marginal income tax rate of 91% was reduced during the Kennedy Administration to 77% in 1964, Federal Individual Income Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP actually increased several percentage points over the next four years.

Also, most of us taxpayers are smart enough to know that back then [[and for the most part, even today), state and local revenues - not federal revenues - were used to fund that kind of stuff.

Nice try, thanks for playing!

That is the argument of the Laffer curve. And it's worth giving a bit of credence to. But the thing about the Laffer curve is that it involves lowering taxes from a confiscatory rate to a slightly less than confiscatory rate, a la Kennedy. Hence the "curve" at the high end of the spectrum. How much more value does that produce? Who knows. You can probably say that some of the boost in GDP merely comes from people who had been "fiddling the taxman" before ... which Det_ard pointed to.

But it's the Laffer curve, man. Way up at the end of the spectrum. There is no Laffer "line" suggesting that every time we lower tax rates, GDP always goes up.

And yet, that's precisely what supply-siders have been arguing since Reagan came into office. It has gotten to the point where people are so brainwashed they believe that cutting taxes to zero percent would mean economic activity would EXPLODE. And that's patent absurdity. And this is the kind of reckless ideology that has led to greater inequality and practically wrecked the national economy.

And that's why I'm glad to see these protests. We need to re-examine some of this junk ideology and chart a new path.

[Mikeg]

.....There is no Laffer "line" suggesting that every time we lower tax rates, GDP always goes up......

I did not attempt to make that argument, I provided historical data showing that contrary to your claim, a fourteen point reduction of the 91% top federal income tax bracket clearly removed a disincentive for both high income earners and federal revenue collections.

Are you still trying to make us believe that back then "we had enough money for schools, police, fire, pensions, social programs, etc..." because of high marginal federal income tax rates?

[Scottathew]

In short, I'd say to the extremists who cling to Reaganomics: We get it. You don't like taxes.

One thing that I think we might be able to agree on is that the right extremists that love low taxes also seem to love expensive war, which seems contradictory!

However, where we'll have to depart is that I still would like to see low taxes and no expansion of welfare programs [[I'm OK with the current level, including Michigan's capped 4 years). I think we can start making the cuts we need to balance the budget by reducing military spending and wars.

In the spirit of common ground, I assume that you're for a large expansion of mass transport, something I am also for. I want to see a comprehensive regional system that involves [[reliable) buses and light rail to start. I want to see high speed rail [[140 mph+) linking major cities.

I'd also like to see any "stimulus" spending spent on infrastructure, including roads, solar, wind, and hydro energy. We can create jobs for today, and energy for tomorrow.

[Danny]

If the 99% Percenters take over government and create a socialist ideology. Taxation will be shared along the masses for roads, enviromental qualities, schools, free universal health care, social services agencies, Social Security [[For retirement and pernamental persons only), Welfare and food stamps [[ for those who disabled or lost their jobs within 2 years as long they don't get fired. State socialist lotteries [[ not up to a million dollars with a 10% tax). Taxation is not a profit for politicians or bailouts by means of TARPS or TANFS. The state will hold funds for proletarian reliefs from national or enviromental crisis. There wi be taxation with representation in The Socialist nation of United States of America.

[Jimaz]

Another thing.

About this people's-mic-crowdnet-PA system they've been using: It does add the psychological drama of instantaneous public affirmation but it's totally unnecessary with today's technology. So why do they bother? They're using technology for what it's worth but they're also sending out the preemptive message that they've prepared a communications plan B should the technocracy pull their plug. I sense the influence of Anonymous here.

This has been very shrewdly planned. They have built resilience into their movement....

Occupy Phoenix - Premobilized Police

At 1:15 this guy says "they turned off the cell towers."

[Downtown Lady]

Jimaz, that is so disturbing. For anyone who hasn't watched the video, it's a brief description [[2 1/2 minutes) of how police in Phoenix were mobilized, waiting for the [peaceful] protesters, with machine guns and riot gear. They then turned off all the lights in the park and turned off the cell tower so that no one could use their cell phones.

[Jimaz]

... They then turned off all the lights in the park and turned off the cell tower so that no one could use their cell phones.

Towers.

Did that action not also inhibit local emergency 911 calls in the area that were unrelated to the protest? Who's side are they on? When Public Safety itself casually disregards the safety of the public, it's long past time to reassess those who hold that authority.

Lesson learned: The parasitic saboteurs in power can disable your cell phones. Establish alternative strategies.

[Russix]

Occupy Phoenix - Premobilized Police

At 1:15 this guy says "they turned off the cell towers."

Most likely a RF Jammer. Too bad this Vet lives in New York: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ZronqIzeI

[DetroitIrishK]

This might get some negative attention, but why should we have to deal with the Occupy Detroit movement as tax paying citizens.

Of course the Occupy movement claims their 1st amendment right to peacefully assemble, and I get that. However, at what point will the citizens of GCP be able to fight back against their obvious squatting? Their camp is moving closer and closer to us. While I appreciate the fact that they are quiet and courteous, at what point do the open fire pits, the urinating in public, and squatting become a nuisance?

I post this on here just to get another perspective on this whole ordeal

[animatedmartian]

Hey that's no way to talk about the homeless!

[Joseph C. Krause]

So Occupy Detroit is annoying the occupants of Detroit.

I support the movement, but these people should be in West Bloomfield and Birmingham. And/or, they should pick up some of the houses Northwest of Corktown, which last I looked were going from $1-500. Then they could *really* occupy Detroit. No need for tents!

And they "definitely" have an obligation to arrange for portajohns and follow city codes for conduct in public parks.

If you live on GCP, though, you should not expect a quiet neighborhood.

[Dexlin]

Funny, I didn't know Marie Antoinette had a place on GCP. Is the very sight of the peasants bothering you? I'm sure if you went down and relayed your concerns to them, they'd be happy to oblige you...

Won't someone think of the downtown yuppies?! Won't anyone think of the downtown yuppies?!

[corktownyuppie]

So Occupy Detroit is annoying the occupants of Detroit.

I support the movement, but these people should be in West Bloomfield and Birmingham. And/or, they should pick up some of the houses Northwest of Corktown, which last I looked were going from $1-500. Then they could *really* occupy Detroit. No need for tents!

And they "definitely" have an obligation to arrange for portajohns and follow city codes for conduct in public parks.

If you live on GCP, though, you should not expect a quiet neighborhood.

I'm neutral about the movement, which is about as much support as you can expect from someone working in the financial industry, if that means anything. But if they're going to go through the trouble, I agree. GCP is worthless. They should pack up and move onto Big Beaver Road at Somerset Collection. Or up in Bloomfield Hills.

And yes. Portapotty's should be mandatory.

[Dexlin]

They were up in Bloomfield, the other day, though, not at any financial establishments.

[noggin]

I'm neutral about the movement, which is about as much support as you can expect from someone working in the financial industry, if that means anything. But if they're going to go through the trouble, I agree. GCP is worthless. They should pack up and move onto Big Beaver Road at Somerset Collection. Or up in Bloomfield Hills.

And yes. Portapotty's should be mandatory.

Maybe while up at Somerset they can upgrade their iphones at the Apple store.

[Autoracks]

Does anybody remember this JohnKuhnPhoto guy? He was the rich kid from the suburbs who went around vandalizing stuff that didn't belong to him in the city.
http://www.painting-detroit.com/Pain...Gallery.html#2
I rest my case. Disgusting.

Camping in Roosevelt Park with all your friends is more fun though. Or vandalizing vacant structures that don't belong to you.

whats wrong with "vandalizing" vacant structures if nobody cares about them anymore? I couldnt care less about whoever paint splattered all that stuff but whats so "disgusting about it? Only reason you should care is if you own these things that he "vandalized" and if you do....
shame on you