"Occupy" Protests

I think Epignosis and The Doctor should fuse into one person, then run for President. It'd be a nice balance. 

Deathrabbit wrote: I think Epignosis and The Doctor should fuse into one person, then run for President. It'd be a nice balance.

I foresee unending gridlock. 

We'd have the left and the right covered, we'd need a moderate to sort things out. 

He is one of our greatest presidents, and certainly the greatest of the last 100 years.  Another FDR is what this country truly needs. 


Edited by The Doctor - October 19 2011 at 17:08

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: It's quite simple actually Robert.  FDR proposed something similar back in the day.  A 100% tax on all wages over what in today's dollar would be approximately $300,000 per year.  Income taxes would not decrease as that money the company saved would either be passed on to other employees who would then pay taxes on it, or it would be passed on to stockholders in the form of dividends (at least a portion) which would also then be taxed.   Do you know how many companies you would ruin through such a measure?  By limiting someone's income, you limit their purchasing power and ability to start fresh businesses.  Other businesses (luxury goods, real estate, etc.) will fall apart, thereby causing people to lose their jobs. In other words, this idea would be keeping people out of work.  The middle class will have more money, the upper class will have less, sure, but I'd say 30% of your population would be destitute and unable to find work. A good argument.  However, I'm not sure that it completely destroys the concept, only that perhaps FDRs $300,000/year limit was too low.  A point I would be willing to concede.  What level would be the best, I do not know, and will not pretend to know.  I would argue against any level. Forbes wrote: Depending on how fancy your new place is, a blank-slate approach will set you back $100,000 to $300,000 for stuff like industrial cooking and ventilation equipment, refrigerators, freezers, tables, bar stools, shelving and counters with stations for cutting, heating and cooling. Starting a brand new restaurant according to Forbes would cost 33% to 100% of a wealthy person's annual salary according to your original idea.  Then there's ongoing expenses: Forbes wrote: As for ongoing expenses, the cost of goods sold (food) will be the main course: 25% to 40% of revenues, depending on the restaurant concept, says Peter Ryan at Restaurant Solutions in Myrtle Beach, S.C. (Pizza joints will be on the low end, steak houses on the high end.) Payroll will gobble an additional 20% to 25%; rent should eat 8%. After marketing, payroll and taxes, if you end up clocking 5% profit margins, pat yourself on the back. If people's incomes are limited, they may be less interested in going out to eat, especially if the cost of a meal is higher because the risk of running the restaurant is higher. Assuming you are not wealthy (let's say you make $75,000 a year at your day job), would you be willing to take a out a loan to start a restaurant (or any business) with these risks in order to employ others- knowing full well that you could only achieve a very limited return if your business proves to be very successful?

To your "if people's income is limited, people may be less interested in going out to eat" - if the wealthy are making less, certainly they may not go out to eat as much at the $500 a plate restaurants, but you yourself conceded that the middle class standard of living would rise.  This means the middle class would have more expendable cash to go out to eat, maybe not at $500 a plate restaurants, but they would go out to eat more.  The dynamics of the restaurant industry would shift with less high-priced restaurants to more middle-income restaurants.  There is nothing wrong with that, and to the contrary might actually improve the job market.  One wealthy person can only go out to eat so many times no matter how wealthy he/she is.  Thousands of middle class people can go out to eat a lot more if they have more money, so spreading the wealth downward actually increases employment. 

I already conceded that my original $300,000 is probably a little on the low side, but was simply working off the equivalent to FDRs proposal.  I could see it being higher, but think it not only should be limited, but must be if we are to do anything about the rampant inequality of wealth in our country, where a CEO makes 475 times what an average worker makes. 

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: It's quite simple actually Robert.  FDR proposed something similar back in the day.  A 100% tax on all wages over what in today's dollar would be approximately $300,000 per year.  Income taxes would not decrease as that money the company saved would either be passed on to other employees who would then pay taxes on it, or it would be passed on to stockholders in the form of dividends (at least a portion) which would also then be taxed.   Do you know how many companies you would ruin through such a measure?  By limiting someone's income, you limit their purchasing power and ability to start fresh businesses.  Other businesses (luxury goods, real estate, etc.) will fall apart, thereby causing people to lose their jobs. In other words, this idea would be keeping people out of work.  The middle class will have more money, the upper class will have less, sure, but I'd say 30% of your population would be destitute and unable to find work. A good argument.  However, I'm not sure that it completely destroys the concept, only that perhaps FDRs $300,000/year limit was too low.  A point I would be willing to concede.  What level would be the best, I do not know, and will not pretend to know.  I would argue against any level. Forbes wrote: Depending on how fancy your new place is, a blank-slate approach will set you back $100,000 to $300,000 for stuff like industrial cooking and ventilation equipment, refrigerators, freezers, tables, bar stools, shelving and counters with stations for cutting, heating and cooling. Starting a brand new restaurant according to Forbes would cost 33% to 100% of a wealthy person's annual salary according to your original idea.  Then there's ongoing expenses: Forbes wrote: As for ongoing expenses, the cost of goods sold (food) will be the main course: 25% to 40% of revenues, depending on the restaurant concept, says Peter Ryan at Restaurant Solutions in Myrtle Beach, S.C. (Pizza joints will be on the low end, steak houses on the high end.) Payroll will gobble an additional 20% to 25%; rent should eat 8%. After marketing, payroll and taxes, if you end up clocking 5% profit margins, pat yourself on the back. If people's incomes are limited, they may be less interested in going out to eat, especially if the cost of a meal is higher because the risk of running the restaurant is higher. Assuming you are not wealthy (let's say you make $75,000 a year at your day job), would you be willing to take a out a loan to start a restaurant (or any business) with these risks in order to employ others- knowing full well that you could only achieve a very limited return if your business proves to be very successful? To your "if people's income is limited, people may be less interested in going out to eat" - if the wealthy are making less, certainly they may not go out to eat as much at the $500 a plate restaurants, but you yourself conceded that the middle class standard of living would rise.  This means the middle class would have more expendable cash to go out to eat, maybe not at $500 a plate restaurants, but they would go out to eat more.  The dynamics of the restaurant industry would shift with less high-priced restaurants to more middle-income restaurants.  There is nothing wrong with that, and to the contrary might actually improve the job market.  One wealthy person can only go out to eat so many times no matter how wealthy he/she is.  Thousands of middle class people can go out to eat a lot more if they have more money, so spreading the wealth downward actually increases employment.  I already conceded that my original $300,000 is probably a little on the low side, but was simply working off the equivalent to FDRs proposal.  I could see it being higher, but think it not only should be limited, but must be if we are to do anything about the rampant inequality of wealth in our country, where a CEO makes 475 times what an average worker makes.

This is ridiculous and needs to change.

^It's got so far gone, that a good yank is going to be necessary before getting down to the work of making sure it never happens again.  

The Doctor wrote: ^It's got so far gone, that a good yank is going to be necessary before getting down to the work of making sure it never happens again.

The only problem with the middle class in this country is THEY'RE ADDICTED ON HEROIN AKA easy credit and living way beyond their means.

Deathrabbit wrote: A good yank will just do exactly what Rob is saying. Sometimes smacking the TV harder just breaks it instead of making it work.

Maybe it was time for a new TV anyway. 

My family came to America and we were able to accumulate a lot of money BY NOT SPENDING. I have no idea why people making over 100,000$ a year are getting their houses foreclosed.

I think we should raise the minimum wage to 1000$ an hour (that way everybody is rich) and we put a maximim wage at 1001$ an hour. Therefore, I propose government decrees that we should all earn the same. Yes, this will certainly solve all problems.