world

Protesters in New York march on billionaires' homes

82 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2011 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

82 Comments
Login to comment

"You have money!" "We don't have money!" "Give us your money!"

-4 ( +8 / -11 )

These bums and slugs should be looking for work.. instead of trashing the city while they protest.... America has turned into a bunch of lazy bums who want a free handout and do not want to work for anything anymore... i live here in USA and it's the truth

-17 ( +4 / -22 )

Did they visit Bernard Madoff ?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Or as the bankers say, "We have money, we want more money, give us your money." Not only do the richest in America have most of the money, they have most of the political power.

America is no longer a true democracy. The majority have no real voice in government. All the power has been bought by the richest. Simply, it is a plutocracy.

The poor and disenfranchised, those without bread, are starting to get the message: "Let them eat cake."

9 ( +13 / -4 )

America is no longer a true democracy. The majority have no real voice in government. All the power has been bought by the richest. Simply, it is a plutocracy.

This is precisely what officers of Citibank informed their superiors in now infamous internal communications. Ordinary Americans have to fed with a constant line of BS in order to dupe them that "the system" is working for them -- when all indications are that it is not.

One thing I disagree with in your quote: America was never anything close to a real democracy. But there are millions of people who believe in and want democracy. Perhaps the second American revolution -- a non-violent one -- will bring us closer to it.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

this seems to be human society dynamics, repeats over and over all throughout history: when things get very unfair to the majority by accumulation of power in the hands of few, it's time for change, maybe

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I'm not envious of the rich, I'm just p'oed at the "rich" that don't pay their taxes (using every cheap loophole they can get), the "rich" that are so greedy that they'll over charge and screw anyone they possibly can just to make more $$$, and the stockholders that are stuck into thinking that their stocks should always be going up by leaps and bounds every week which helps encourage the corporations to try to make more money to keep their stockholders happy. My standpoint has always been to never ever run someone over on purpose just to get what you want. It will guaranteed come back to you. Stay the course and treat everyone right and people won't have any complaints.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Seems that most of the global economies are doing their best to tax their way out of the financial crisis but are reluctant to tax the wealthy in a fair and proportunate way

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Of course America has never been a Democracy. Since the ratification of the constitution, it has been a Republic. We don't need or want democracy because a democracy is majority rule or put another way, mob rule. The best example of a democracy in action is a lynch mob. there's one dissenting vote, unfortunately he's at the business end of the rope! If you really want the rights of the minority preserved, a republic is the best option.

Unfortunately the focus of these protests is misplaced. Instead of hating the rich, these people should be focusing on their enablers in Washington, the State Capitols and City Halls who take the money, campaign contributions aka "bribes and payoffs" and rewrite the rules that enable the Corporate "fat cats" think Fascists to make their ill gotten gain at the expense of small business men/women and the entrepreneur.. In doing so, theyrejust clearing the playing field of the competition and rigging the game so they don't lose.

The problem isn't the free market, it's when government and business collude to tip the table in favor of the few at the expense of the many. Call it corporatism if you want, Mussollini, a fellow who knew a thing or two about it called that Fascism.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

With wealth inequality greater than the Ivory Coast, America should give up and accept its 3rd-world status.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

One thing I disagree with in your quote: America was never anything close to a real democracy. But there are millions of people who believe in and want democracy. Perhaps the second American revolution -- a non-violent one -- will bring us closer to it.

America is a REAL democracy, although, most liberals want to redistribute wealth and to them that would be a true form of democracy. NO, what we need is to get these scum off the streets and to have this President get off his skinny rear-end and try to create jobs and these nutty idiots need to take their dissatisfaction to the WH and not use thuggery and intimidation to run on someone's private property with whiney childish demands or temper tantrums would be a more accurate term to use.

-11 ( +2 / -12 )

Many people are angry, but do they VOTE?? Nice to go out and protest, sure makes you feel happy, but at the end of the day, we need to vote, take out the scum who are in power and hog up all the $$$$$$$$$ for themselves and for their cronies, this is not only happening in NYC, it is here in Tokyo, in Beijing, in Paris, in Sao Paolo, heck even in Havana Cuba, no matter what those so called socialist say, only a few have power and $$$ in Cuba, but at least in the USA we can VOTE, so get ready, educate yourselves and VOTE! If you have enough $$$$ and time to go out and protest fine, it is a free country not like North Korea, but if you do not vote, well shut up and do not complain, but if you do vote, speak up and fight for your rights and turn the USA around from the land of 1% filthy rich to a land of say even 50% well off, and to the land of 100% at least 3 meals a day, 1 roof over your head, clothes on your back and 100% universal health insurance for all, just like they have in the US congress and US senate and in all of the US armed forces.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Why don't they protest in front of Steve Jobs' estate. He was a billionaire.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Why don't they protest in front of Steve Jobs' estate. He was a billionaire.

Here are a few more homes that they should be protesting but somehow they get left off the list:

Paul Krugman: Former Enron advisor

Micheal Bloomberg: NYC Mayor

George Soros

Philip Falcone: LightSqured billionare investor

Jeffery Immelt: GE CEO

If they want any credibility, in my opinioin they should target all of them, not just the ones who they disagree with politically.

4 ( +5 / -2 )

Making the richest Americans pay more taxes is a core demand of Occupy Wall Street

LOL. Taxing the richest Americans is like peeing into a typhoon in the hope that it'll right a sinking ship. This AFP article is a promotion for the privately-run Fed owners who are the real power in the US. In fact behind the scenes it is they who wield control in most countries.

The Wall St protestors should be targeting the Fed (and other central banks). It is the central banks who distort the economy through fractional reserve banking and usury. How could it not be when they create money from nothing and charge interest which doesn't exist in the system?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Galvanized by an overnight crackdown on protesters in Boston, the demonstrators took a route through the Upper East Side past the homes of media mogul Rupert Murdoch and conservative industrialist David Koch.

So basically this is about politics and not true economic grievances. Why go after only conservatives when there are plenty of liberal millionaires that do not pay any more in taxes themselves? With the labor unions joining this effort this 60's style protest movement has become just another arm of the Democrat party. The problem is that the person in charge of the country at the moment is a Democrat.

Corruption is bipartisan and is manifested by government policies that do not treat all entities (individuals, companies, organizations, etc.) equally. It is what people can get away with legally and not illegally that is truly appalling. When the presidents jobs czar is the head of a huge multinational corporation that pays nothing in taxes, something is seriously wrong.

2 ( +4 / -3 )

@Alphaape: when you confront liberal progressives with facts about their billionaires/millionaires (as you did) their silence is deafening. You see, in their minds, only conservative millionaire/billionaires are evil...

-1 ( +2 / -4 )

If they want any credibility, in my opinioin they should target all of them, not just the ones who they disagree with politically.

I'm going take that one and throw it right back at'cha.

Taka

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Wolfpack,

You're right, corruption is bipartisan. But it leans right.

Tatanka,

Interesting you should say something like that without presenting any facts yourself. Or is your sole hobby posting unsubstantiated, inflammatory remarks on internet forums?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

One thing about the rich is that they know how to stay rich. Even if they do get taxed they'll flowchart that money right back.

What is important is that these people are Americans. Their government is broke financially. From the bottom up Americans have seen that being rich puts you above the laws of the land. Now the 1% are so rich that they can bend the government at will. Bottom-feeding off America's poor, it's government is limited. Broke after funding a war, they finally hand it over to an African-American. The People are upset, actually they are beyond just being upset. I believe Obama is a shoe-in to be re-elected so long as the country perceives the rich Republicans (1%), who don't want to pay taxes or pass a bill to create jobs, as the enemy.

Countries around the world are seeing the people rise up. The Internet is the tool by which the People will reshape this planet. It's shocking that Japanese who are going through the same process (The Economic Divide) have not made their own stand using the Internet as it's Katana.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Many thanks to Mr BUSH's tax cut in his eight years in office, a civil war in America is imminent!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Bloomberg will call up the National guard with live ammo ready to shoot! Wait and see!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

It seems impossible for all people to be equal. When the present policy reach a deadlock, is it right to resort to illegal act to overturn everything? I don't think it's right. Not all rich people do bad act. It is unfair for them to give up their wealth. However I think it's must to restrict political corruptions among rich people.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Well, it looks like Obama is going to get his class war. I note that these liberal protestors are not marching against Barbara Striesand and her ilk who also happen to be millionaires.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@HumanTarget

Unsubstantiated facts? What cosmic bunny hole have you fallen into? You can Google anyone on the list produced by Alphaape to verify their limousine liberal hypocrisy. Oh, and "corruption leans to the right." thats NOT an inflammatory remark?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

That's not what I was referring to by "unsubstantiated". I was referring to your assertion that "when you confront liberal progressives with facts about their billionaires/millionaires (as you did) their silence is deafening."

Look up "The Young Turks". It is the world's largest online news talk show - 30 million views per month. It's liberal-progressive and EXTREMELY critical of both sides of the political spectrum. Same thing with Salon.com. Hardly what I would call "silence".

And it's true, corruption does lean to the right. It's simple logic. The Citizens United court case, brought by the extremely conservative Citizens United advocacy group, is responsible for much of the corruption in our political system right now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah, very nice. Since sitting in one place and gaining media attention wasn't enough they felt the desire to make a show of themselves in front of other people's homes. Just goes to show if you break no laws, succeed in your life, and make a name for yourself there will always be someone at your door telling you how they need it more.

America was never anything close to a real democracy. But there are millions of people who believe in and want democracy. Perhaps the second American revolution -- a non-violent one -- will bring us closer to it.

Because it's working so well in Europe. I'll take the republican form of government any day, I actually take issue with the 17th amendment, it stripped much of the sense from the senate. Centralized power is the bane of all societies, that includes the mob. Split it between the people, the states, and the Electoral College. Government action should be slow, logical, and not overly subject to the fleeting fancies of the masses.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'm going take that one and throw it right back at'cha.

@Taka313: Actually the ball is in your court. If you see the news and read the article, you can see that they are only targeting those whom they oppose politically. I am fine if they march pass Murdoch and other billionares who lean right, but don't just try to make it as if it is only those on the right.

By the way, I don't blame some of the intent on the protestors, but I have to say some personal responsiblity does have to come into play. Yes there was a housing bubble and big banks and money lenders made bogus loans. But they were not forcing people to go and get loans that they couldn't afford. If you were using bogus income data to qualify for loans on homes that were way out of your price range, then it really isn't Wall Street's fault that you took the bait to get caught up in a loan that you knew you couldn't afford. Greed on Wall St, yes. Greed on Main St, yes also. Not also to put the blame on those who gambled and lost, but also on local and state governments that based spending on property taxes they were expecting and when the values went down they are left with budget gaps. Greed was all around. Both on the right and the left.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Alphaape,

sorry, got any numbers on how many of these protestors took out irresponsible loans? Even if they did, since when is wanting to own a home - historically a major step in achieving the "American dream" - greedy?

A lot of them just want a job, since, you know, there are 4.5 applicants for every job opening in America right now, even as GE rakes in some of its biggest profits ever, pays 0$ in taxes, and still lays off thousands. What happened? I thought they were the "job creators"? In the "trickle down" system - big profits, low taxes = jobs, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

even as GE rakes in some of its biggest profits ever, pays 0$ in taxes

It's completely incorrect comments like this, based on an equally incorrect NY Times article, from the protesters that makes it awfully hard to take them seriously.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Like yesterday, someone said to me :

There was once, we had Bob Hope, Steve Jobs and Johnny Cash. Now, we have no Hope, no Jobs and no Cash....... What happened to the American Dream?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ben (excuse me if I don't shake your hand - nothing personal),

Forbes has the dirt on how GE avoids taxes here: http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html

1 ( +1 / -0 )

IRonic thing is, the poor in America are still far better off than 90% of the world. How many "poor" in third world countries have iPods and cell phones, and use Twitter to organize? Or live in homes with color tv, refrigerators, and game systems? Those who call the USA a third world country need to get out and actually SEE a third world country before making such ignorant statements.

Greed is not a politically driven emotion, however envy seems to be.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Laguna,

When a company or individual records a loss, they can deduct that. However, GE did and does pay local, state and federal taxes in the US. Maybe these people should learn how to do their taxes and read a spreadsheet before protesting.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Alphaape

Here are a few more homes that they should be protesting but somehow they get left off the list: Paul Krugman, Micheal Bloomberg, George Soros…

If you go to adbusters.org you'll come across a web site promoting the Occupy Wall Street protest.

http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet

If you then do a search on 'Soros' and 'adbusters' and you'll find that Soros has been funding this "movement for democracy," through at least one of his foundations. I'm sure the vast majority of protestors are well-meaning but unfortunately they're being undermined and the movement hijacked.

You'll find that Krugman is the same. They focus on Wall St (which is good) but avoid the Rothschild's CENTRAL BANKING scam at all costs, which is the real root of the problem. These guys are part of the power elite and it's the reason why their homes are not being targeted. Here's a libertarian web site analysis of a NYT article written by Krugman and his avoidance of the obvious.

http://www.thedailybell.com/3046/Occupy-Wall-Street-The-Coordinated-Promotion-Continues

1 ( +1 / -0 )

These bums and slugs should be looking for work.. instead of trashing the city while they protest.... America has turned into a bunch of lazy bums who want a free handout and do not want to work for anything anymore... i live here in USA and it's the truth

@Darrin Flores You're misinformed my friend. Where were you 4 years ago when big business raided our banks because according to them if they didn't receive government bailouts the entire system would come crashing down?! They then paid themselves the largest bonuses in American history with OUR money and with no accountability as to where ANY of bailout money went, stuck the bill to the average American citizen to pay for decades to come while they stuffed more money into their already fat pockets. Then they sat back and watched as unemployment rose and more people got unconstitutionally kicked out of their homes because of illegal loans and the country go up in flames without a single bit of conscience. Did you sleep through all of this? Now those same people have powerful lobbyist in the government that control voting against things like the bailout of the American people in the form of Obama's jobs bill. Where does the greed end? And where does your ignorance of reality end?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Protesting is not a crime.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@weedkila: you forgot to mention how Krugman talked up Enron and got paid $50,000 in for the corporate embellishment services. We all know how that turned out...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Right you are, Ben - and isn't it a coincidence that GE Capital records huge losses in American domestic operations while recording large profits overseas! Lucky for them - they can transfer the tax credits available for those losses to cover their profits in other areas.

Listen, I understand fiduciary responsibility requires that companies maximize profits even if that means finagling the system. Heck, I do it all the time myself. A good system makes it impossible to do so. Obama's proposal that US-based corporations which book profits in countries with tax rates under 35% return the remainder to US coffers would go a long way towards eliminating this loophole.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You people on this forum sitting around calling the protesters idiots or complaining about their actions haven't really understood the state of the global economy and how it affects the average working citizen and how it will inevitably affect YOU! True revolution can only be attained by the drastic actions of the oppressed. These people have a legitimate gripe whether they are protesting at the root of the problem (the wealthy) or the the leaves at the end of the vine (the government), at least they are doing something. Someone made a comment about the protesters not voting. Don't be naive my friend voting only gives the illusion of a democracy and will only change the face of the puppet at the top. The true power structure didn't change when Obama was voted into office and it won't change with this next election either (unless Ron Paul miraculously wins; he seems to be the only politician not controlled by corporate greed but even that's a big stretch).

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

What these clowns do not understand is that the "rich" aren't as rich as they think they are. Take Bill Gates, for instance. He is "worth" $56.0 billion. Is that money lying around in some bank account with his name on it? No. It is the total of ALL of his assets including Microsoft.

So let's say that the $56.0 billion was to be confiscated and given to every man, woman and child in the United States. There are ~312 million Americans so that means that each person would get 56,000,000,000 / 312,000,000 = $179.49 per person ONE TIME. That number can only be accomplished by selling off EVERY ASSET Bill Gates owns. There would be no more Microsoft because all of its assets would have to be sold off to meet the demand. Everyone who works at Microsoft would be thrown out of work. Everyone who specializes in Microsoft products would be thrown out of work. All of those taxpaying people who feed the system these clown eschew would then go on the dole creating even greater need for other people's money.

Since all of Bill Gates' assets are now gone, the $56.0 billion would not be available next year as those assets no longer exist.

The protesters are simply lazy good-for-nothings who want to exist for nothing and be supported by the sweat of other people's brow. They think socialism would be a great thing; but they don't consider what happens when they run out of other people's money.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

By the by. What will these "protesters" do if the "rich" simply move away and take their assets with them?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A good system makes it impossible to do so.

That would have to be a perfect system and there is no such thing.

My main point of argument here is that people saying GE are thieves or that they did not pay any taxes in the US are mistaken. If you make it hard for companies to stay in the US, they will leave and they will take their jobs with them. Yes, some revamping of the system is probably in order. No system is perfect. However, making inaccurate claims such as GE not paying any taxes weakens the arguments of the protesters and their supporters.

GE does pay US taxes and has paid US taxes. Were they 'enough'? That is a matter for debate. However, they did pay them.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

sorry, got any numbers on how many of these protestors took out irresponsible loans? Even if they did, since when is wanting to own a home - historically a major step in achieving the "American dream" - greedy?

@Human Target: No I don't have any data on what you asked. I am sure that there are a mix of people in the crowd that would fall into the category I described. I am not talking about the person who worked a job, and took out a loan for a home that was in his income range, and then lost his job. That person I can understand and feel sympathy for. No one expects to have their job taken from them like that.

I am talking about those who did use false information to get homes, or those who overextended themselves by borowing against homes as if they were cash money or trying to buy multiple homes, basically playing "musical chairs" with borrowed money and homes until the music stopped. Those are the ones who when they were making money everything was fine, but now that they got caught holding the bag, now it's a problem.

You are correct, owning a home is the best way to get out of poverty, and it still is the American Dream. But if you were only making $50-60K a year, that doesn't mean that you should be living in a $500K home. I have seen in my old neighborhood how older homes shot up in value by speculators and how people who had been living there for generations were sold a false bill of goods to sell and they did.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Continue of last post: Only to find out that the "new homes" were highly overpriced and the money they made from selling old homes in old areas quickly went away, and now they are left with nothing. While their old homes are now priced out of their range.

If you want better neighborhoods and increased home values, cut down on crime in areas and soon values will start going back up. Just my opinion.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You people on this forum sitting around calling the protesters idiots or complaining about their actions haven't really understood the state of the global economy and how it affects the average working citizen and how it will inevitably affect YOU! True revolution can only be attained by the drastic actions of the oppressed.

I am sorry, I have no empathy with most of these bums. I don not object to them protesting and I am not the biggest fan of Wall street, but to wanting to go to these peoples homes and to harass them, reflects poorly on them and to equate them to the "tea partiers" is nutty. The tea partiers wanted Washington to stop spending and it started with TARP and grew from there. They weren't shutting down the city, beating up on people. You think drastic action is the only way? Using force. so if I work hard and make a good living, I have to give in to these thugs and give up what I earned so that Joe Blow with no job can do whatever he wants, that means being lazy, not wanting to work. I hear all the excuses on a daily basis. This is what is so fundamentally wrong with America. America is slowly becoming France-a welfare state. You are actually seeing this unfold right in front of your eyes. "Give me stuff!" And for what, these people will see in the end, they will achieve nothing. This is a ruse, some of what they are saying I do understand, but now you have the Dems jumping on the bandwagon, hoping that this movement will grow into something like the "Tea Party" and that they can get enough momentum to keep them in power and deflect from the real issue. Obama and his failing admin. Which is the real crux of the problem. It's a stretch. a bold one, may not be the smartest one, but got to hand it to them. Smart move on the Dems part, have to say.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I know that odor. It's the Spirit of the Communism. It's walking around the world, it gains more power... It will reborn soon.

Protesters can't find a work, they live to pay credits, they see how gov pushing shipload of money to corporations and military, not to science, medicine and socials.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

However, GE did and does pay local, state and federal taxes in the US. Maybe these people should learn how to do their taxes and read a spreadsheet before protesting.

Ben_Jackinoff is wrong here. According to the facts, as presented in a great many places -- including a NYTimes story of March 24 of this year -- titled GE's strategies let it avoid taxes altogether -- GE actually gets back more from the US government than they pay in taxes, giving them a negative tax rate.

In 2010, GE reported $5.1B of profits in the US alone. ($14.2B worldwide). On that $5.1B, GE paid the U.S. government nothing. In fact, they received a $3.2B tax benefit -- yes, money from Uncle Sam.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

These bums and slugs should be looking for work.. instead of trashing the city while they protest.... America has turned into a bunch of lazy bums who want a free handout and do not want to work for anything anymore...

In Japanese, it's "dochi mo do chi," in English, "six of one and half a dozen of the other.

What's the difference?

"Making money" by passively accumulating interest, buying and selling stocks and shares?

Or being a lazy bum who wants a handout?

Aren't these the same?

Neither the lazy bums nor the ultra capitalists are the guys who built America.

Those guys are a dying breed.

And, unfortunately, dying with them are their values, such as freedom, human rights and dignity.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

". It's the Spirit of the Communism. "

I think it's the spirit of people pissed of with un-checked cpaitalism run wild, rather than the stench of communism.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Aren't these the same?"

Nah, the rich dude still works 14 hours a day and pays some taxes pro-rata, despite that part being the issue here.

Bums have been allowed, nay, encouraged to breed - and become acustomed to lying in bed 'till eleven with a tab and a cuppa laughing at the fools that get up and go to work to pay for their slobitude. But that sounds like Europe anyway, not the US....

I'm a capitalist but I support reigning it in. No single individual should be allowed to accumilate the power and wealth some have. It isn't in the interest of either humanity nor democratic principles. Rupert Murdoch being the first into the spotlight, oh, and perhaps someone could remind the world they forgot about his 'phone hacking scandal.....somehow?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I think its unfair to call them lazy. Many of these people have ben working two jobs just to make enough money to survive and now they're jobless. Sure is easy to tell them its their fault and to get educated, but how? They havent been able to save a dime to pay fortht eduction. Will you teach someone to read a spredsheet for free?

And how can you not see the point? Barbara streisand and steve jobs didnt become billionaires because the lied and cheated the system. Why SHOULD they be protested?

Those with power have the responsobility to ensure the system continues to work. Unfortuntely they haven't done that. You cnnot blme someone who took a mortgage, because it never should have been offered. If i knowingly sell you a faulty blender and you get your hnd chopped off its your fault? Get real.

There are major problems and these people simply wnt their voices heard. All they're asking for is someone to listen.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I am sorry, I have no empathy with most of these bums.

This is a very typical if not prominent right-wing attitude. And why? Because basically, those on the right genuinely dislike people. Only those individuals who conform to the right-wingers' idea of what is right can they get empathy.

That is why a right-winger can get misty-eyed looking at a picture of a soldier with John Wayne and the American flag, but as soon as that soldier admits that he's gay and/or homeless -- he gets booed off the stage. He just didn't conform to their narrow view of what is acceptable.

Also, note and contrast the overtones of violence at Tea Party rallies with that of the "occupy" folks. ("Nothing better than a dead liberal" is playing on YouTube, and you won't find anything remotely resembling that sentiment at these Occupy gatherings.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I feel to see how it's fair to call these people bums.

Bums don't go out and look for work, much less go out to protest because there aren't any!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Fail to say. Feel and bums together doh!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And how can you not see the point? Barbara streisand and steve jobs didnt become billionaires because the lied and cheated the system. Why SHOULD they be protested?

No, they beacme rich by working hard. Babs had to start off at the bottom in show biz and through luck and skill made it to the top. I don't think that she went around demanding equal roles that Raquel Welch was getting when she was rising up. How many auditions did she fail in? Same with Jobs. He had a product and an idea. Through working with these same venture captialist to front him money to make his dreams come true he got rich. How many meetings was he turned away from before he finally got the right people to lend him the money.

It takes time and effort. What I will agree with is that at some point, the playing field needs to be somewhat leveled in terms of holding those who cheat the system accountable and make it harder for cheaters to operate. But going there and demending some of the demands that I have been reading and hearing about (i.e. redistributing the wealth, etc) is not going to solve anything. If you gave everyone $1 million dollars in the US right now, some enterprising person will find a way to sell some unsuspecting person a $2 million dollar house, and we will be right back where we started.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Fox News took a poll of its web site visitors (who tend to be conservative) and got a result they probably didn't expect:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/07/do-occupy-wall-street-protests-represent-your-views-economy/#ixzz1aV4S9O9E

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On that URL, click on the "View Results" link.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Making the richest Americans pay more taxes is a core demand of Occupy Wall Street, its left-wing and labor union supporters, and its many offshoots that have sprung up throughout in the United States.

Keep pushing and these tycoons will end up in tax heavens worldwide where these rich guys are welcome with open arms. Thay are smart American citizens with success driven by the American dream !

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@bass4funk Why do you assume that because these people are standing up to an unjust system and failed democracy that they are bums? A great many of the protesters are highly educated working class citizens who are fed up with a one sided government that no longer represents the people. Arrogant elitist like yourself call them bums etc... because you really don't have a clue until your career, 401(k) plan, social security, medical insurance or home magically disappears after you've spend decades putting your life's earnings into it. And the worst part about it is no one can explain to you where all your money went. They use fancy words like derivatives to confuse and disorient you but the fact of the matter is your money was stolen. Meanwhile some guy on Wall Street just bought his girlfriend a $1,000,000 diamond engagement ring from what used to be your neighborhood homes. Dozens of people are out of work or kicked out of their homes to pay for that ring and you wonder why people are upset.

You want to talk about hard work, imagine you've worked your entire life, put in 30, 40, even 50 years into a company and you're ready to retire only to realize that you can't because some wall street mogul has somehow evaporated your company's pension fund. You need to wake up a realized what is really going on. These people aren't bums; these people are victims of outright theft. When this situation finally affects you, I wonder what song you'll be singing then?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

And the worst part about it is no one can explain to you where all your money went. They use fancy words like derivatives to confuse and disorient you but the fact of the matter is your money was stolen. Meanwhile some guy on Wall Street just bought his girlfriend a $1,000,000 diamond engagement ring from what used to be your neighborhood homes. Dozens of people are out of work or kicked out of their homes to pay for that ring and you wonder why people are upset.

It would really tee me off if a government leader rushed to bail out these crooks using taxpayers' money. People losing their homes and the culprits of the debacle are using bailout money to pay out bonuses to their henchmen.

Of course, we can't complain about this because to point out the truth would be "class warfare."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Go back to your mother and fathers, get a job, get off the drugs, stop having sex with everybody, go to the library, hit the books, get a degree and eventually get a job. If you are really upset about your bleak economic future, don't blame the banks, don't blame the corporations. Many of them are saying entrepreneurs are making too much money so we have to soak the rich. All of you are using iphones, all of you are using ipods and ipads. Steve Jobs just recently died. He was one of the most dynamic creative entrepreneurs that America has ever seen. He made hundreds and hundres of millions of dollars. You are benefitting from the fruits of his entrepreneurism. If you impose what you want on Steve Jobs, there would be no iphones, there would be no ipods, there would be no ipads. This is what made America the wealtiest most prosperous, most poweful successful country in the world.This is the essence of the free enterprise system. If you want to soak the rich, if you want to tax their profits, confiscate their wealth and private property, what you end up having is North Korea, it's cuba, it's the old Soviet Union where everybody is poor. These idiots are all Obama's children.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

yabits,

Ben_Jackinoff is wrong here. According to the facts, as presented in a great many places -- including a NYTimes story of March 24 of this year

As I wrote earlier in this discussion, the New York Times article was found to be incorrect when they claimed GE did not pay US taxes. Maybe you had better check your information before jumping to defend an incorrect position.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As I wrote earlier in this discussion, the New York Times article was found to be incorrect

Further research has determined that the NYT article does not tell the full story. The definitive piece on this topic, by consensus, is the work of Allen Sloan and Jeff Gerth for Fortune/ProPublica.

However, as Sloan writes: "One reason the Times got ensnared -- and that it took us a while to figure things out -- is that the material is confusing. Professor Outslay drew up 10 GE tax metrics for us, and could have given us at least six more. None of them show what GE's U.S. income tax bill is for a given year."

Note: That means you can't definitively assert that GE paid taxes either.

Sloan continues: "We're certainly not siding with GE, which for decades has been an aggressive tax-minimizer, and could have averted this mess by explaining things simply and clearly to the Times and us and others. It either couldn't or wouldn't do so."

Fact: GE has not yet paid any taxes for 2010. It was this year -- 2011 -- that they paid some minimal taxes for 2009. As Sloan writes: "After repeated conversations with GE -- remember, we've been working on this story too -- we can finally give you reasonably definitive answers. The company says that it's not getting any refund for 2010 -- validating Outslay's analysis. Its 2010 tax situation? "We expect to have a small U.S. income tax liability for 2010," GE chief spokesman Gary Sheffer told us. How big is small? GE declined to say. The number is unlikely to ever be disclosed unless GE goes public with it, or is forced to do so."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In other words, I was not wrong. Thanks for the clarification.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Fact: You can actually look at GE's returns on the net. You know, if you actually care about facts.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In other words, I was not wrong.

In other words, it looks as though you are not right.

Fact: GE has not paid any taxes for 2010. The "expect" to pay a "small" bill. But expecting is not paying.

Thanks for letting me reinforce that bit.

Fact: GE's returns do not show how much they paid in taxes.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Please learn at least a little about a subject before commenting. Companies are allowed to defer their tax payments. That does not mean they will not pay them.

Thanks for letting me reinforce that bit.

Why are you thanking me for your reinforcing an incorrect bit?

You also forgot to mention that you were wrong about GE gettinga $32 billion refund as well. Tell me, are you one of those people that believed the spoof research report saying Bush had a very low IQ? I bet you were or are.

From the article:

Unfortunately, for all its good work, the Times story has created at least one major misperception -- that GE paid no U.S. income taxes last year and is actually getting a $3.2 billion refund from the Treasury.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Unfortunately, for all its good work, the Times story has created at least one major misperception -- that GE paid no U.S. income taxes last year and is actually getting a $3.2 billion refund from the Treasury.

The Times did good work. As Sloan writes: "One reason the Times got ensnared -- and that it took us a while to figure things out -- is that the material is confusing. Professor Outslay drew up 10 GE tax metrics for us, and could have given us at least six more. None of them show what GE's U.S. income tax bill is for a given year."

I was definitely wrong in following the Times article regarding the refund. But it should not detract at all from the point that GE pays far less in taxes than it should, and that they purposely obfuscate what they actually pay. That's something that Sloan and the NYTimes both agree on.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Fact: You can actually look at GE's returns on the net. You know, if you actually care about facts.

The net will not show what GE actually pays in taxes in a given year.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The net will not show what GE actually pays in taxes in a given year

You can find tax returns for each year.

I was definitely wrong in following the Times article regarding the refund.

You were wrong full stop. Again, I quote: 'the Times story has created at least one major misperception -- that GE paid no U.S. income taxes last year and is actually getting a $3.2 billion refund from the Treasury.'

Sorry, hyperbole does certainly detract from the discussion.

Now, how about explaining your comment that GE 'purposely obfuscate what they actually pay'. What they pay is a matter of public record.

Just because you don't understand tax laws or spread sheets does not mean something illegal or untoward was done. It could just be you don't know what you are talking about. In fact, it seems that that is exactly the case.

Again, I was not wrong. You were.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Times did good work.

Not that time. Spending misconceptions is hardly good work. Try to remember that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

But it should not detract at all from the point that GE pays far less in taxes than it should

Think I'll twist the screws a bit more. You claimed GE did not pay taxes. You were wrong. You claimed a $32 billion refund. You were wrong. That certainly does detract from any serious discussion of tax laws. I guess when you are on a rampage of blaming, you don't want to let a little thing like facts get in the way, huh?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You claimed a $32 billion refund. You were wrong.....

You also forgot to mention that you were wrong about GE gettinga $32 billion refund as well.

First of all, you were twice wrong by a factor of 10. Someone who tries to come off as a financial expert repeats pretty dumb mistakes by leaving out decimal points -- is rather pathetic. The number I've always used is $3.2 billion.

Secondly, I never used the word "refund" in my initial post. The word appears in one post where it is used in the article I directly quoted. I used the correct term from the original Times article: a tax benefit. You're the one who turned it into a refund, so you're wrong about that one too.

Spending misconceptions...

Not sure what that means, unless it refers to turning 3.2 into 32.

You can find tax returns for each year.

Sorry, I'll trust Sloan and company for pointing out that GE has done a lot to obfuscate what they actually pay.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

First of all, you were twice wrong by a factor of 10.

Poor attempt at deflection. I did not type a period on an internet discussion. However, I have been correct all along in the content. You have been wrong in what I pointed out you were wrong about.

The number I've always used is $3.2 billion.

Yup. You were always wrong about it, too.

Secondly, I never used the word "refund" in my initial post.

Above, you just wrote:

I was definitely wrong in following the Times article regarding the refund.

You were wrong about the 3.2 billion. Call it whatever you like. You were wrong and you said you were wrong and you referred to it as a refund when you said you were wrong.

The word appears in one post where it is used in the article I directly quoted.

The article that was wrong about it.

Not sure what that means,

It means I misspelled. I meant spreading. Are you going to blame your being wrong on misspellings? The content of what I wrote is correct. Yours is wrong.

Sorry, I'll trust Sloan and company for pointing out that GE has done a lot to obfuscate what they actually pay.

Great. Then trust them to tell you you are and were wrong.

I will readily admit I push the submit button before checking my spelling. How about you readily admitting you push it before you check your facts?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Poor attempt at deflection. I did not type a period on an internet discussion.

Your failure to insert a period conveyed to readers -- twice -- that I had said $32 billion when in fact the number was $3.2 billion. That's a pretty egregious mistake when spending so much time and effort blaming others.

Call it whatever you like.

No. The Times article called it a "tax benefit." If I ever called it a refund, I would have been wrong. The Sloan article makes the point that a tax benefit is not necessarily a tax refund, and faulted the Times for not making the distinction more clear. But you jumped on the tax benefit as though it were equivalent to a refund. Where I went wrong was taking your word on that.

Whatever a $3.2 billion tax benefit is, GE received it. As I mentioned in my very first post regarding this, other sources reported GE's underpayment of taxes. Citizens for Tax Justice (ctj.org) issued a report of June 1, 2011 titled: Twelve Corporations Pay Effective Tax Rate of Negative 1.5% on $171 Billion in Profits; Reap $62.4 Billion in Tax Subsidies Obviously, GE is not alone.

I believe the protesters have valid reasons for being extremely upset with how rich, profitable corporations receive taxpayer subsidies, and how little so many of them pay in taxes. The funds not being paid by these corporations have to be made up from somewhere. And, if not, the ordinary taxpayer is getting saddled with the debt.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That's a pretty egregious mistake when spending so much time and effort blaming others.

Baloney. I am not blaming anyone for anything. You were wrong. Plain and simple. You were not wrong about spelling. You were flat out wrong. I merely mistyped. You were factually incorrect and continued to repeat your incorrect statements even when corrected. Now, you attempt to use a period to deflect from the incorrectness of your statements. Sad.

If I ever called it a refund, I would have been wrong.

Do you read what you write? You did call it a refund. I quoted you as calling it one. You were wrong.

You also wrote, in case you forgot:

In fact, they received a $3.2B tax benefit -- yes, money from Uncle Sam

That certainly makes it appear that GE received money from the US government, ie a refund. You claim to know what tax benefit is yet you wrote of it as if it were a refund. The same way the NYTimes article did. Thus my initial response to you. They did not receive money from the US government.

Whatever a $3.2 billion tax benefit is, GE received it.

They did not receive $3.2 billion. You claimed they did. You claimed they received money from Uncle Sam. You misled as the New York Times did. Again, wrong.

You claimed they did not pay US taxes. You claimed this more than once. You were wrong. On both of these counts you were wrong.

Your failure to insert a period conveyed to readers -- twice -- that I had said $32 billion

It did no such thing. I included the 3.2 billion figure in quotes in the same posts. It was obvious what I was talking about. You only sought to bring it up when you got caught being wrong about actual facts being discussed. Again sad.

To revise:

You were wrong about GE not paying taxes and you were wrong in suggesting they received S3.2 billion from the US government.

Me? I forgot to put in a couple of periods in posts that had already made clear what figures were being talked about. In fact, I had already put the periods in the figure being discussed several times. You? You were just plain wrong. Factually so, nothing that can be blamed on a typing error.

You want to suggest the tax laws in the US should be changed? Go for it. However, I merely pointed out where someone had been mistaken to which you took up the torch and continued to incorrectly claim GE had not paid US taxes. Why should anyone listen to your suggestions about tax laws when you can't or are not willing to get your facts straight and when it is like pulling teeth to get you to admit you are wrong when you clearly are?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

They did not receive $3.2 billion. You claimed they did.

Yes, I claimed they received a $3.2 billion tax benefit. You keep leaving out the noun that the adjective describes and making the adjective into the noun. (Is that a typo too?) From the Sloan article: "GE's 2010 financial statements reported a $3.25 billion U.S. "current tax benefit," which is where the Times, which declined comment, got its $3.2 billion "tax benefit" number. "

So, you have no basis for claiming that GE did not "receive" (e.i. credit themselves with) a $3.25 billion tax benefit when they clearly did.

But a tax benefit is not directly equal to a tax refund, I will admit. (I was as sloppy with my original statement as you have been with your errors.) As the article says, "GE made a muddled situation worse by putting complicated, technical and lawyerly rebuttals on its website, tweeting them, tripping over itself, and then proving unable to explain itself in public exchanges with the likes of Henry Blodget, proprietor of the widely followed BusinessInsider blog. Or in conversations with reporters."

But also, to the extent that any part of a tax benefit means GE pays less in taxes, that is equivalent to receiving money from Uncle Sam, who will have to make up that lost revenue somewhere else. A tax credit is financially equivalent to paying the full tax amount and then receiving the amount of the credit back as a refund. Now, I am not claiming that a $3.2 billion tax benefit is equivalent to a $3.2 billion tax credit -- only that some portion of that benefit must mean that GE is paying less in taxes than it otherwise would. Some portion of it does have the same effect as a tax credit. Some portion of it is equivalent to getting money from Uncle Sam.

when you can't or are not willing to get your facts straight

I don't believe that you, or I, or anyone is a perfect purveyor of "facts" on this topic. But as to a willingness to get facts straight, I believe I've given that goal an honest effort. After all, you stated early on that the NYTimes article was wrong without the slightest reference as to why. It was I who researched and found the Sloan article which supported the claim that anyone saying that GE paid zero taxes was not right.

You've revealed quite another agenda, however, by falling into what appears to be a good amount of personal vindictiveness. And that is a ranker form of self-deception than my confusing a tax benefit with a tax refund.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes, I claimed they received a $3.2 billion tax benefit.

That is not the same as receiving $3.2 billion, which is what you wrote. You were wrong.

A tax credit is not anywhere near the same thing as receiving money from the US government, which is what you incorrectly claimed.

I was as sloppy with my original statement as you have been with your errors

I have made no factual errors. You have. Big difference.

that is equivalent to receiving money from Uncle Sam

No. Not having to pay something is not the same as recieving something.

It was I who researched and found the Sloan article which supported the claim that anyone saying that GE paid zero taxes was not right.

From what source did you think I was basing my original correct opinion on? It was that very article. You know, the one you said was wrong and then when on to continue to say I was wrong while all the while providing the very article showing I was correct. Looking back on it now, surely you can see I had read the article and that was what I was basing my comments on from the beginning of my critique about comments about GE.

It was I who researched and found the Sloan article which supported the claim that anyone saying that GE paid zero taxes was not right.

That carries considerably less weight because before doing that you incorrectly insisted that it was correct and that I was wrong.

You've revealed quite another agenda

No agenda. Keep your mind clear and on topic for once. I merely corrected someone and you jumped in claiming I was wrong. I was not wrong. You were. It really is as simple as that. You still have not come out and said you were incorrect in claiming I was wrong when you did...speaking of self-deception. Had a look in the mirror lately? That is all for me on this subject.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You know, the one you said was wrong and then when on to continue to say I was wrong while all the while providing the very article showing I was correct.

To be clear, "the one" refers to my opinion that the statement that GE did not pay taxes was incorrect.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

One more post for me here. How amazingly ironic that I came into this discussion with two points:

1) That it was incorrect to claim that GE paid no US taxes.

2) That it was incorrect to suggest that GE received $3.2 billion from the US government

Both of my points were correct. One poster argued for days that I was wrong. I was not.

The ironic part is that someone decided I get thumbs down for merely posting correct information and the person who fought for days pushing the incorrect claims that GE paid no taxes and incorrectly suggesting that GE received $3.2 billion from the US government gets thumbs up. Facts get thumbs downs and inaccuracies get thumbs up? Ironic indeed.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Hi Ben i have friends on skype Living in the states i beleive everything you have put matches up with the convys on my skype with my friends and i also believe there is a news blackout form the states we are hearing things ing the uk in dribs and drabs

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites