Skip to main content

http://www.rollingstone.com/po...ts-cheating-20111025

 

I was at an event on the Upper East Side last Friday night when I got to talking with a salesman in the media business. The subject turned to Zucotti Park and Occupy Wall Street, and he was chuckling about something he'd heard on the news.

 

"I hear [Occupy Wall Street] has a CFO," he said. "I think that's funny."

 

"Okay, I'll bite," I said. "Why is that funny?"

 

"Well, I heard they're trying to decide what bank to put their money in," he said, munching on hors d'oeuvres. "It's just kind of ironic."

 

Oh, Christ, I thought. He’s saying the protesters are hypocrites because they’re using banks. I sighed.

 

"Listen," I said, "where else are you going to put three hundred thousand dollars? A shopping bag?"

 

"Well," he said, "it's just, they're protests are all about... You know..."

 

"Dude," I said. "These people aren't protesting money. They're not protesting banking. They're protesting corruption on Wall Street."

 

"Whatever," he said, shrugging.

 

These nutty criticisms of the protests are spreading like cancer. Earlier that same day, I'd taped a TV segment on CNN with Will Cain from the National Review, and we got into an argument on the air. Cain and I agreed about a lot of the problems on Wall Street, but when it came to the protesters, we disagreed on one big thing.

 

Cain said he believed that the protesters are driven by envy of the rich.

 

"I find the one thing [the protesters] have in common revolves around the human emotions of envy and entitlement," he said. "What you have is more than what I have, and I'm not happy with my situation."

 

Cain seems like a nice enough guy, but I nearly blew my stack when I heard this. When you take into consideration all the theft and fraud and market manipulation and other evil **** Wall Street bankers have been guilty of in the last ten-fifteen years, you have to have ***** like church bells to trot out a propaganda line that says the protesters are just jealous of their hard-earned money.

 

Think about it: there have always been rich and poor people in America, so if this is about jealousy, why the protests now? The idea that masses of people suddenly discovered a deep-seated animus/envy toward the rich – after keeping it strategically hidden for decades – is crazy.

 

Where was all that class hatred in the Reagan years, when openly dumping on the poor became fashionable? Where was it in the last two decades, when unions disappeared and CEO pay relative to median incomes started to triple and quadruple?


The answer is, it was never there. If anything, just the opposite has been true. Americans for the most part love the rich, even the obnoxious rich. And in recent years, the harder things got, the more we've obsessed over the wealth dream. As unemployment skyrocketed, people tuned in in droves to gawk at EvrÉmonde-heiresses like Paris Hilton, or watch bullies like Donald Trump fire people on TV.

 

Moreover, the worse the economy got, the more being a millionaire or a billionaire somehow became a qualification for high office, as people flocked to voting booths to support politicians with names like Bloomberg and Rockefeller and Corzine, names that to voters symbolized success and expertise at a time when few people seemed to have answers. At last count, there were 245 millionaires in congress, including 66 in the Senate.

 

And we hate the rich? Come on. Success is the national religion, and almost everyone is a believer. Americans love winners.  But that's just the problem. These guys on Wall Street are not winning – they're cheating. And as much as we love the self-made success story, we hate the cheater that much more.

 

In this country, we cheer for people who hit their own home runs – not shortcut-chasing juicers like Bonds and McGwire, Blankfein and Dimon.

 

That's why it's so obnoxious when people say the protesters are just sore losers who are jealous of these smart guys in suits who beat them at the game of life. This isn't disappointment at having lost. It's anger because those other guys didn't really win. And people now want the score overturned.


All weekend I was thinking about this “jealousy” question, and I just kept coming back to all the different ways the game is rigged. People aren't jealous and they don’t want privileges. They just want a level playing field, and they want Wall Street to give up its cheat codes, things like:

 

FREE MONEY. Ordinary people have to borrow their money at market rates. Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon get billions of dollars for free, from the Federal Reserve. They borrow at zero and lend the same money back to the government at two or three percent...

 

CREDIT AMNESTY. If you or I miss a $7 payment on a Gap card or, heaven forbid, a mortgage payment, you can forget about the great computer in the sky ever overlooking your mistake. But serial financial ******* like Citigroup and Bank of America overextended themselves by the hundreds of billions and pumped trillions of dollars of deadly leverage into the system -- and got rewarded with things like the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, an FDIC plan that allowed irresponsible banks to borrow against the government's credit rating....

 

STUPIDITY INSURANCE. Defenders of the banks like to talk a lot about how we shouldn't feel sorry for people who've been foreclosed upon, because it's they're own fault for borrowing more than they can pay back, buying more house than they can afford, etc. And critics of OWS have assailed protesters for complaining about things like foreclosure by claiming these folks want “something for nothing.”

 

This is ironic because, as one of the Rolling Stone editors put it last week, “something for nothing is Wall Street’s official policy." In fact, getting bailed out for bad investment decisions has been de rigeur on Wall Street not just since 2008, but for decades....

 

UNGRADUATED TAXES. I've already gone off on this more than once, but it bears repeating. Bankers on Wall Street pay lower tax rates than most car mechanics. When Warren Buffet released his tax information, we learned that with taxable income of $39 million, he paid $6.9 million in taxes last year, a tax rate of about 17.4%.

 

Most of Buffet’s income, it seems, was taxed as either "carried interest" (i.e. hedge-fund income) or long-term capital gains, both of which carry 15% tax rates, half of what many of the Zucotti park protesters will pay.  

 

As for the banks, as companies, we've all heard the stories. Goldman, Sachs in 2008 – this was the same year the bank reported $2.9 billion in profits, and paid out over $10 billion in compensation --  paid just $14 million in taxes, a 1% tax rate.

 

Bank of America last year paid not a single dollar in taxes -- in fact, it received a "tax credit" of $1 billion. There are a slew of troubled companies that will not be paying taxes for years, including Citigroup and CIT....

 

GET OUT OF JAIL FREE. One thing we can still be proud of is that America hasn't yet managed to achieve the highest incarceration rate in history -- that honor still goes to the Soviets in the Stalin/Gulag era. But we do still have about 2.3 million people in jail in America.

 

Virtually all 2.3 million of those prisoners come from "the 99%." Here is the number of bankers who have gone to jail for crimes related to the financial crisis: 0.

 

Millions of people have been foreclosed upon in the last three years. In most all of those foreclosures, a regional law enforcement office -- typically a sheriff's office -- was awarded fees by the court as part of the foreclosure settlement, settlements which of course were often rubber-stamped by a judge despite mountains of perjurious robosigned evidence....

 

 

Last edited by Buttercup
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Most of Buffet’s income, it seems, was taxed as either "carried interest" (i.e. hedge-fund income) or long-term capital gains, both of which carry 15% tax rates, half of what many of the Zucotti park protesters will pay. 


You have protestors paying 30% tax rates? This is the rates currently for a single person.

  • 28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus
  • 33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus
  • 35% on taxable income over $379,150.

So they have an income of about $200,000. When are they going to their job and why should any one 'donate' money to the cause? They are already in the rich range according to the Pres. How many of them are employed by the evil corporations?


The government has lousy tax rules. Granted. The reps have ideas to change the tax rules. All condemned by the dems. So it's either agree to change the tax system or deal with the tons of 'legal' ways to keep money if you are rich.

Originally Posted by b50m:

The reps have ideas to change the tax rules. All condemned by the dems. So it's either agree to change the tax system or deal with the tons of 'legal' ways to keep money if you are rich.


The Dems are arguing the the rich will have to pay more, which as you pointed out, the Repubes only goal is for the rich to pay less.  The total tax burden for wealthy Americans has never been lower than it is today.  And with 40% government budget deficits, it shows.  The shift of wealth to the top 2% has made the system untenable.  The budget cuts necessary to approach a balanced budget are coming, with the military to get the biggest hit, with annual budget cuts approaching 20% and the end of free health care for retirees and their families. 

The Democrats had two years to change the banking rules, when they controlled both houses of congress -- where's their efforts.  They aided and abetted the banks in crony capitalism fashion. At least, the banks paid back most, if not all, the funds lent them -- some with interest. I doubt we'll ever see GM pay back all they were loaned, or get the funds back by sell of their stock.

Where did I say republicans are for the rich to pay less? A revamping of the tax codes would have everyone paying more. Which is what it will take along with serious overhaul of entitlements and 'agencies' that do duplicate work for this mess of a republic to ever get back to balanced.

 

You could strip all the money from that one percent and the deficit would drop 1 trillion, maybe.

 

The difference I see between the two sides is the dems want a free ride on the government backs for everyone that makes less than that 1 percent. The reps want to stop the loopholes and reform codes so more of the 1 percent money IS taxed and everyone else shares the burden. Sharing the wealth is what dems want, sharing responsibility is what reps want.

 

It reminds me of the Netflix fiasco. They raised their fees 60%. What happened? Did they get more revenue? No, they lost 800,000 subscribers.

 

Netflix Inc. (NFLX) dropped the most in seven years after the video-rental service said it lost 800,000 U.S. subscribers in the third quarter, more than expected, and predicted more cancellations over a price increase.

 

Raise taxes, lose people who pay them. It's not hard to understand.

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
GM has already paid back almost everything. You need a new information source.

Dear Secretary Geithner:

General Motors (GM) yesterday announced that it repaid its TARP loans. I am concerned, however, that this announcement is not what it seems. In fact, it appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle.

On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for TARP, testified before the Senate Finance Committee. During his testimony Mr. Barofsky addressed GM’s recent debt repayment activity, and stated that the funds GM is using to repay its TARP debt are not coming from GM earnings. Instead, GM seems to be using TARP funds from an escrow account at Treasury to make the debt repayments. The most recent quarterly report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP says “The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.” See, Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP, Quarterly Report to Congress dated April 20, 2010, page 115.

 

GM paid back the loans with TARP money. Like paying your Visa with MC.

The OWS problem is they have no real leadership and no real demands or statements.  They do have a wesiste where several of the looney left have posted a set of demands that, frankly I might add, make them look like a bunch of crying commies.  It is hard to take them serious.  They are not even sure of what they are prtesting against.  They only know that someone has more than them, and they obviously got it in an ill-gotten way, less they would have the same priviledge.  These people are asking for ridiculous things like debt forgiveness, and now Obama has announced plans to forgive some student indedtness, falling right into their hands and in an effort to gain their support. No wonder the man got elected to office.  He knows how to play to the iliterate.

Poor poor Jimi.  Have you ever seen a shell game?  You know follow the cup?  The money went to the secure the Union retirment programs which were dragging the company into insolvency.  GM is making money money because they are making autos that people will buy, but the problem is not gone.  They cannot pay back the money that was given to them and pay the huge Union retirement benefits that were promised.

Originally Posted by teyates:

Poor poor Jimi.  Have you ever seen a shell game?  You know follow the cup?  The money went to the secure the Union retirment programs which were dragging the company into insolvency.  GM is making money money because they are making autos that people will buy, but the problem is not gone.  They cannot pay back the money that was given to them and pay the huge Union retirement benefits that were promised.

 

Keep plenty of interns and secretaries around to keep him busy and the country would do just fine.

Dumb and dumber.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×