I would seriously like to hear the view point of those who are for this movement. Curious to understand why they believe what they do.
honestly this movement isn't going to go anywhere... the greed of people wanting to make money will always be there and will not change. Certain views I do understand like bonuses promised to higher level execs.... if it requires the company to fire 50 Positions to afford a bonus for one person that isn't right and should be corrected. On the other hand do not think you should be given anything for free... earn it or win the lottery or something... It is wrong for financial institutions to just hand out school loans like it hands out flyers on a busy street... but also people who do not believe they can pay off their debt shouldn't dive into a loan of that nature, it limits the people who really want to try for a better life an those that are not interested. I see way to many people who go to college just cause it's the normal thing to do, who skip class and fail exams and bitch and whine to try and get a passing grade.
Don't get me wrong guys... I'm totally for reform like complete transparency on all publicly traded companies, but no one has a fcking clue bout what they want exactly done... and same as reno... I'm completely PISSED the fck off that some ppl are taking their kids to the protests, even occupying with their kids instead of keeping their kids in school... some ppl sold their belongings, left the apartments they rented out and took their kids with them... yeah see that's why you're in such a hell hole right now... YOU'RE NOT MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS IN LIFE... ** OH and AKKI... THANK YOU! damn I'm so sick and tired of ppl that bitch and moan about college tuition and not being able to afford it in the US... OMFG... ok ffs, if you can't afford to go to a $25-$50k a year school, DON'T... seriously, here's something I think ppl should know... here in Silicon Valley: HP, Cisco, Target, Yahoo, Amazon, IBM, etc... where do you think they get most of their fresh grad recruits from? NOT Stanford, USC, Cal, UCLA... MOST of them get their grads from my STATE school, San Jose State... CSU costs $7k a year currently to go... My family aren't the richest bunch, we get help from the government to pay for tuition, my brothers and I all get tuition PAID in full AND we get a check for $2.5k every semester for books, supplies, housing, etc... does that really sound so fcking bad going to a state school?
What can you say... People are lazy, stupid, greedy and hypocrite fucks. You would wonder how we made it this long as a human race...
You know what, all this talk about execs cutting jobs to keep their bonus and shit is also getting pretty tiring. I am not denying that it may or may not have occurred, but aside from news media, what other FACTUAL evidence do you have to make these claims that execs cut jobs to keep their bonuses? Again, the only source is the media. And the media is proven to be selective. So the media is a flawed source of information, yet you insist on pursuing this retarded cause? Let's take a company that we all love to talk about: Apple Inc. What makes you think Steve Jobs isn't doing the same thing? People are probably so brainwashed by Apple products that they decide to conveniently ignore it. Again, we do not know what's going on in the background, and who are we to make such claims? Another thing, this idea of transparency is retarded as well. Businesses offer YOU the CONSUMER products and services. They have NO obligations to you. You don't like what they're doing? DON'T BUY THEIR PRODUCTS, DON'T SUBSCRIBE TO THEIR SERVICE. SIMPLE. Why the hell do THEY have any obligations to you to be transparent? Corporations aren't governments. They are businesses. And they are entitled to do what they wish to do. You as the consumer are their lifeline. You don't like what they're doing? Then stop fucking buying their products, don't fucking mope about their transparency bullshit.
except they're publicly traded... as in the public can buy shares in a company... it's like going to do your shopping, wouldn't you want to know WHAT you're buying? do you WANT another Enron? do you want to buy milk that has NO expiration date printed? would you like to put money into a bank that's bankrupt, but they're not telling you? would you like to buy a ticket with an airline that have planes that will crash any second only they don't disclose it? would you like to buy a car that will break down as soon as you drive off the lot and they don't tell you? would you like to buy a drug for your cough that would cause heart attacks? ffs there's a million reasons for companies to be transparent... especially if the government use tax payer money to bail some of them out...
A "public company" is a limited liability company that can sell its stocks/shares to a company. These are called "privately-held companies", unlike the ones owned by the government called "publicly-owned companies". It's confusing I know. And one of the main disadvantage of a private company is this: "A privately held company has no requirement to publicly disclose much" - Wikipedia These companies have NO obligation to you. You don't like what they're doing? Don't buy their stocks/share. Can't be any clearer. Don't buy milk from milk companies that do not follow safety standards and regulations regarding milk. These standards are regulated by the GOVERNMENT. Don't invest in a bank if you feel that they're cheating you. There are plenty of other banks out there. Don't buy airline tickets from the airlines that you don't trust. In fact, don't fly if you don't feel safe. And tell me, how the hell would we not know about plane crashes? Like the milk case, Don't buy cars from car companies that do not follow safety standards and regulations regarding quality and safety. These standards are regulated by the GOVERNMENT. Like the milk case, Don't buy drugs from drugs companies that do not follow safety standards and regulations regarding quality and safety. These standards are regulated by the GOVERNMENT. And I can go on and on. You seem to misunderstand the definition of a privately-held company. They have no obligation to you. As Peter Schiff clearly said, you don't like what the companies are doing? Don't buy their products, don't buy their services. Furthermore, you seem to mistaken your wish for "transparency", with the obligation for companies to follow PROPER SAFETY AND QUALITY STANDARDS SET FORTH BY THE GOVERNMENT. You're lobbying the wrong group here. It's not the companies you should be lobbying against, it's the fucking government. The government is the constant here. Companies can just sell their company and all of your effort to lobby against them to be "transparent" will be nullified. Seems pretty clear to me.
we all have choices on what we want to do, and can do if you don't want to do it - no one forces you at the same time, the 1%... good for them. they put in the effort and made it there i have nothing against that. sure, don't we all wish we were part of them - then don't have to worry about financial issues ever again but in reality - i dont' see how anyone can't get by with what they have they're just picky and complain... and it seems like that's all they do
Oi… bro.. you have got to be shittin’ me… no… this is why you don’t read shit off wiki and automatically think you’re right… Ok get this bro… a publicly traded company is a privately owned company that has reach >500 investors… once you hit that threshold you have to disclose your financials per US law… this is the same reason why Facebook is going IPO in the next few months… This is not the same as a publicly OWNED company i.e. government owned industries… Again, taking Facebook as an example is not yet in the eyes of the public because it’s still at <500 investors, but LinkedIn for example went public earlier in the year because it needed more funding, and therefore LinkedIn has to reveal it’s financials quarterly + annually… Bro, stop getting shit twisted… yes this shit is regulated by government, but under nondisclosure i.e. no transparency, they don’t have to disclose whether or not they are safe… there are many ways to fulfill criteria which fall under regulations… my favorite example is Kellogs corn flakes, they say they have all the iron you’ll need in your diet per day, but hey guess what, if you stick a magnet in there and let the shit dissolve long enuff and give it a stir, you’ll find all your literal iron particles stuck to your magnet… government regulation essentially = transparency… stop bein’ a dick, take a deep breath and think for a second... Again bro… I know the difference between publicly owned and privately owned… I was talking bout publicly TRADED… as a stock owner companies DO have an obligation to answer to you as you put your money into their company… and if they want to get funding they’re gonna have to report their results… are you sure you want a market full of companies that don’t disclose information so you are blindly putting money into a company that is potentially another enron? And don’t give me bull shit about “o then don’t invest your money in companies you don’t trust”… well how the fck are you gonna trust any company that doesn’t disclose information about themselves… and if companies don’t get funding they don’t make money… and if you are allowed to manipulate financial information when getting a loan at a bank, hey guess what? good job on the non transparency, your bank is now fcked over for hundreds of millions of dollars... Furthermore, no I haven’t mistaken transparency w/ obligations… because transparency in and of itself SHOULD BE an obligation… falsely reporting revenue and profit hurts tax payers as they don’t pay the proper taxes… using tax payer money to pay off CEOs and/or horizontally integrating more companies hurts the ppl when the bailouts were designed to buy toxic junk bonds… especially if you end up losing more money and ask for a second hand out… hiding defects to cut costs literally hurts… And last but not least, stop being a sheep of the opposite end… I’m against raising taxes on the rich cuz quite frankly most of them earned it through years of shit… I’m for deregulation as that creates more opportunities… hell I don’t even fcking believe in minimum wage, I think it’s stupid and that’s the reason why most ppl are paid like shit to begin with… at the same time for shit like that to work, there needs to be transparency otherwise we won’t know who the fcking scumbags are that keep loaning money that they don’t have to begin with or the scumbags hiring illegals or the scumbags that do cash transactions to avoid taxes, etc… hey i'm all for companies continually raking in the cash, but fck if they're doing it illegally or they're hurting the general public in doing so, no... that's not the way to go... Capitalism in it's purest form is a win win game, not a win lose game...
I can't believe how blind some of the people in this thread are. The power behind protest is the message of dissatisfaction. The message here is, any congressman who is stupid enough to allow Wall St to continue to get away with murder will be voted out of office. Moreover, I'm for legislation that would make financial crimes over the value of million dollars be punishable by mandatory life sentences without parole; crimes valued at more than 100 million should be mandatory death sentence. The problem with Wall Street is that they can skirt the law whenever the feel like it, and when they get caught, they have the taxpayer bail them out, then move on and do it all over again. People are sick and tired of government inaction. I'm 100% behind the protests and you should be too. BTW, the first thing that government should do, is to allow SEC investigators to have a 10% financial reward for the value of all financial crimes they uncover and successfully prosecute, payable from the companies that break the law. That alone would ensure that these crimes get properly investigated. Likewise, SEC investigators who ignore financial crimes, should be indictable and subject to minimum prison terms. One has to recognize that it is absolute human nature to lie, cheat, steal and take more than one's share when on one is checking. This has been proven by history throughout civilization across all borders and cultures. Man is inherently dishonest; it's time to hold every man to a standard of guilty until proven innocent because in general, that's what they are.
@Aoes Alright, my bad on the definitions and interpretations; I've had it wrong. Thanks for the clarification. But my argument still stands. The government has the authoritative power to regulate and enforce what you are asking the companies to do. So why are we protesting (for lack of a better term) against corporate entities instead of the government? @Ralph I could say the same too. I am not defending those who commit fraud, and I do believe they should be prosecuted as well. What I am arguing, is that there are corporate entities out there that abide by standards and regulations, so why are we burning them at the stake? The protest movement currently going on is different than the original purpose of the protest. Currently, they're putting every rich people on the fire, when some of them have nothing to do with what the original movement is apparently about. Call me blind, call me whatever you like, but I can say the same thing about others as well. So no, I am 100% against this CURRENT protest. However that does not mean I am telling you to be against it too. edit2: Maybe the fact that we are living in different regions would explain why we have a different understanding as to what the purpose of Occupy is. In Toronto, these people just protest for the sake of protesting, and it doesn't seem to be the same cause as the protesters in the US. These protesters are leeching off the money that the rest of us earn, saying that they're paying too much taxes when they're just moping around doing jack shit in a park for weeks. I guess that's where my source of frustration comes from. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I agree with what you're saying, but if you haven't noticed recently... more and more of these protests are people protesting for the sake of protesting... and not protesting with an actual goal in mind on how the government should reform, atleast not a majority has yet, therefore no direction... here's an example of occupy bullshit: [video=youtube;pOZOhK2lLuc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOZOhK2lLuc[/video] I don't believe anyone on this thread has openly sad they were protesting against the corporate entities, they were just protesting against what the entities have done and why the government hasn't done a damn thing about it... or atleast that's how it should be... I don't stand behind open flamewars against execs...
I agree with you 100%, that genuine protests can and have been commandeered by others with or without agenda, but that in and of itself, is really immaterial to the object of the dissatisfaction. I think they're making a point, and as long as there's activity in the streets, the simple fact that the protests have legs (ie duration, so to speak) then it warrants attention. In places like Syria, China, Libya, et cetera; they send in troops to snipe and kill people. Luckily, for Americans, the US hasn't sunk yet to that level. As for business execs; sure, there are honest ones. But there are likely just as many willing to rip off the public when no one's looking. I'm just saying we need to start looking, keep looking, and when we find these guys, nail them to a cross and set them afire. And no, that wasn't just hyperbole; that's how much my blood is boiled by these sons of the bitch. The fact that people are continually in the streets banging drums, yelling and screaming; it's certainly putting government on notice that people are pissed about it, whether the actual protest is directed at any one idea no longer matters. The point is, people keep showing up. And at Dan; your points are well taken, but suppose if I enact a law that says all guys named Dan have to pay a Ralph tax of 50% earnings, what would you say? But that's the point of lobbyists, isn't it? We can enact any kind of rule, so long as we pay off the right legislative pen to be more sympathetic to our point of view. Right now guys that used to work for the SEC or other government watchdog bodies eventually go to work for the same guys that they're supposed to be keeping watch on. Who allows that? Congress and government. If it were up to me, I would have a lifetime ban on all such workers, and like I'd stated earlier, give them the opportunity to collect bounties when they nail financial misdeeds. Moreover, I would also invoke civil forfeitures to be at least double the loss the executives cause companies to incur by their criminal wrongdoing. Note, I didn't say to punish bad business, but when actions like those taken by some bosses cross over into what is obviously a crime, then take every dime from them and their families; leave them with nothing and homeless, like they've left so many others. Additionally, if you make 100 times my salary, and pay a percentage of tax less than I do; how would you expect me to feel about you? The least you could do is pay the same percentage as I, then I wouldn't have anything to gripe about. But the fact is, the very rich ensure that they get more simply by being rich, because the right government officials will pander to that sort of crowd. This is exactly the reason why guys like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet say that the rich need to be taxed more; even they can see the inherent unfairness of it. Thus, IMHO, the affluent "others" who don't say anything but are perfectly willing to silently profit from such unequal taxation rules should bear the same animus of the rabble.
If all guys named Dan have earnings that justify the taxable amount of 50%, then yes I will be willing to pay it. I won't be happy, but I WILL pay it. That's ONLY if my income justifies it. However most of us pay about 35% on average, since our income don't reach that of executives. So I am not complaining. But give me a more realistic condition as an example, will you? Such a ludicrous condition will not be enacted, because that is discrimination. I am blind as you said, so tell me a current scenario where you feel you are discriminated, and that you are getting taxed more than what your income justifies. Unfortunately, as I am not American, please enlighten me about an example where that occurred. I agree the punishment should be increased, as to deter further criminal wrong doings, but how do you justify the quantifiable amount of punishment that should be incurred? Unless any of us have any background in corporate law, I highly doubt any of us have the expertise to properly assess the quantifiable punishment. The only thing we can do, is as you said, protest and voice our dissatisfaction. I 100% agree with that. HOWEVER that is not the clause of this current protest. This current protest is misdirected, to a completely different clause (if any). This current protest is a blind protest just for the hell of protesting, NOT to bring awareness of our dissatisfaction to the government. This current protest (in Toronto at least), is about people being greedy, lazy, and feel that they should pay less tax, whereas the rich should pay even MORE tax. It has NOTHING to do with the fraudulent activities by companies. That's the thing, that isn't the case. I don't know how it works in America, but in Canada, the taxable amount you need to pay is relative to your income. So regardless of whether you do fraud in your company or not, your personal tax as an individual still needs to be paid. So for those making 100 times more than both of us, 50% (arbitrary percentage) of their income is 50 times what we both make. Now you want them to pay even more? That's what people are protesting about right now. HOWEVER, that's not to say that there are those who do fraud personal tax. These people should definitely be prosecuted, not those who abide by the law, and pay their due taxes. Again, I don't know how it works in the US, but the rich don't just pay the same percentage as you, they pay DOUBLE what you pay, relative to their income, therefore they pay tens of times more than what you make, not just your tax amount. Do elaborate, as I am trying to understand. Btw, income tax is NOT my specialization, so correct me if I am wrong or misunderstand, please. If I make 40k, my taxable amount is 35%. Therefore I pay 12k. If some next guy makes 100 times more (4 million), and his taxable amount is 50%, therefore he pays 2 million. Two million is already 50 times my income. So why do their taxes STILL need to be raised? From what I understand, it seems people want the rich to earn exactly the same as the average. So the rich should get taxed to the point where they earn 40k. That may be false (obviously), however that is the impression I get from reading all of these posts and watching these videos. That is the EXACT impression I get.
Dan, the 50% Ralph Tax was my tongue in cheek way of illustrating the point of successful lobbying. As for the general tax rates, it's a matter of wealth and how it makes money; the very rich don't ever work, they invest. Their investments earnings are taxed at what is known as capital gains rates, which is actually much less than personal earnings income tax. Moreover, some companies too, actually pay corporate taxes of zero (or less) despite record profits. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/the-top-01-percent-capital-gains_n_1105055.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/major-corporations-tax-subsidies_n_1073548.html And this is what I mean by getting the right legislative pen to work for you: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/rick-perry-tax-plan-millionaire-tax-break_n_1068261.html But, if they're burning down congress and the white house already, then there is a lot less chance that something like Perry's (et al) plan would ever come to pass. That's why we need to have protests, and the louder the better. I agree that there are differences and nuances between the US and Canadian finances but by and large the class structures are the same. The perception has always been that the rich gets richer while the poor not only works harder but becomes poorer. This isn't just my personal assessment, but that of published economists. This is why people are so angry. http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-04-09/business/17145294_1_incomes-rise-inequality-families http://economyincrisis.org/content/rich-get-richer-poor-get-poorer-while-middle-class-gets-decimated http://www.vancouversun.com/business/rich+richer+while+poor+poorer+OECD+finds/5813358/story.html Granted, there may be a few social misfits and marginal characters who choose to involved themselves in these protests for personal agenda or aggrandizement, but in general, regardless of that, they contribute to the overall awareness noise that the issue needs. Yes, there are protesters who do so for the sake of anarchy, I understand that. But that doesn't do away legitimate protest origins and needs. IMHO, they're simply a sidebar event but they do contribute to the hue and cry, and remain politically productive even if they're misdirected.
Unfortunately, Ralph, what I, and a handful of other posters in this thread are trying to say, is that it is not the case. The legitimate protest origins and needs that you speak of has been overshadowed by other senseless and idiotic issues, which are what some of us are arguing against. And it's not just a handful of people who think the same as I do (those who you call blind). A protest is rendered useless when the original purpose has derived. And this is exactly what happened to this Occupy movement. To continue to protest just for the sake of noise and awareness, you're supporting the repurposed movement, not the original purpose. Don't take it the wrong way, but that in and of itself is being blinded in my opinion.
Hmmm... yet I do understand what you're saying, Dan; to an extreme, examples of which would be say, like the London riots that took place after the legitimate protests over the shooting death, or the mayhem that arose from the celebratory sports crowd in Vancouver, or perhaps even the anarchists bent on destruction and bedlam who show up at every G20 summit gathering as almost an obligatory presence. No, I'm definitely not advocating such actions. However, the video that was posted of police in Melbourne being gamed (to their credit, rather good natured and calmly) by protest "tent monsters" is perfectly legitimate. It was a tactical response, an outgrowth stemming from the decision that many municipalities have undertaken to disrupt the protests by forcible removal and closure of these protest cities. In this way protesters are still showing their dissatisfaction even as they're being almost delightfully comical about it. In essence this is civil disobedience at its best; in the above example, they did what they did without hurting anyone or anything (well except maybe the pride of the Melbourne officers, LOL...) Ghandi, IMHO would have been proud. Government always has a degree of responsibility to the masses. In this case, the feeling from the masses is that their government is no longer addressing their needs or are being responsive, except to the favored wants of a narrow, select few. This is arguably the crux of the entire protest movement. Perhaps "blind" may have been too extreme an analysis; but it certainly is, again IMHO, myopic not to see value in peaceful protest, no matter how idiotic non constructive it may seem (like the tent monsters), as it ties into and becomes an integral part of a general movement. Note too, Dan, that everything which so emphatically stated here: ...which you labeled as "naivety at its finest" (are you saying "blind" too, perhaps?), sidesteps the fact that the protests recognizes the entire financial system to have been rigged in the favor of the uber rich. It isn't that the middle class is complaining about having to work, but rather that working hard no longer gains any rewards, and even the simple necessities in life that society expects can no longer be afforded despite a lifetime of working hard. This, you so easily label as too lazy to learn or too financially irresponsible; I don't subscribe to such views, and yes, I would consider such to be blind (or naïveté, if you will) to the prevailing conditions as presently argued.
Sorry Ralph, I can't in anyway agree with baiting police as a legitimate tactical response... here's the aftermath: [video=youtube;8Da3h4LgvIc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Da3h4LgvIc&feature=related[/video] honestly I don't feel sorry for her and disagree with these immature tactics where the sole reason is to provoke police and the municipalities...
