Hellobee Boards

I think its true that Wall street is getting richer at the expense of the those thats cant afford it. They were happy to accept giant bail out money paid by everyday tax payers and claim to be well educated and smart but arent willing to use basic common sense to come to the conclusion that they are being flat out greedy
Among the protestors, there are millionaires who are also in favor of the Occupay wall street movement and are willing to pay higher taxes so poorer people dont have to. So its not about rich versus poor. Its about a greedy and selfish minority versus the rest.

I have an issue with people saying they "deserve" to make more money.

Most of the rich have gotten rich by taking risks, working hard, spending/saving wisely and therefore they should have the rewards of all that. Its a free country and anyone can try to make millions if they so choose.

@Thehistoryofus: I don't think people are saying they deserve to make more money. They are saying that the wealthy don't deserve bigger tax breaks than the rest of us, and to be bailed out when they do take risks that don't pan out. The poor and middle class shouldn't be supporting the wealthy to make foolish decisions. Occupy Wall Street just wants the uber wealthy to chip in a bit more - at least their fair share, but possibly even more so since they can afford it. Many wealthy agree with this as well.

@mrsjyw: The person that wrote that is clearly misinformed about what the Occupy movement is about. It's about how the economy is in shambles due to poor decisions made by big businesses that then the government decided to bail out, and we the tax payers have to pay for. The super wealthy that made those bad decisions continue to be super wealthy while the poor only get poorer.

@mrsjyw: Totally agree!

I too won't get into details, but I do not support anyone who is "occupying"

i'll admit that i have been pretty confused by the whole movement.

i guess what really trips me up is not knowing what the goal of the protest is - what would have to happen for the occupiers to determine this a success, pack up, and go home? because as far as i can tell, there is no end game here, which i just don't understand

These charts will help you understand what the Wall Street protesters are really angry about:

http://is.gd/PM4awe

@Adira: "possibly even more so since they can afford it" Its statements like this that I really do not agree with. Its like saying the Yankees should start each inning with one out because they can afford better players.

@Thehistoryofus: haha, that's why I'm all for salary caps for professional sports.

Generally, income in the US is taxed by brackets. The less you make, the less you are taxed. The more you make, the more you are taxed. And it's not even your whole income, it's just the income above the bracket. So for simplicity sake, say anything under $50,000 was taxed at 20% and anything you make over that would be taxed at 30%. The issue is when someone making $35,000 is taxed at 20% and someone making $1,000,000 is taxed at only at 18%, because a lot of their money is made from other money, and not from working a job, "income."

By saying "possibly even more so since they can afford it," what I meant was that they be taxed at a higher amount for their bracket (the 30%). And not just a flat tax of say 20% across the board (or 9% like Cain suggests). Sorry for the confusion.

@mrsjyw: Love that!

@Adira: As much as I understand/agree that the unemployment rate in this country is at an all time high, people have options they just don't want to take. You can't get a job where you live? Move. There are plenty of areas in the middle of the country which actually have booming economies. Can't find a job in your field? Try something else. There is actually a pretty high demand for truckers in the US (for one example).

Something I think a lot of people around my age have an issue with (I'm 23, I graduated college in 2010) is they don't want a job that is "below" them. But don't bitch about not having a job but only apply for jobs that are "good enough" for you.

And if none of that works, there's always the military. My husband is an Enlisted Naval Aviation Mechanic. He does not have any form of "higher education." Hell, he never even graduated high school (he got his GED) and we're doing just fine. We're not rolling in the dough, but we live comfortably.

My STRONG belief is that if the Occupy protesters put as much effort into getting a job and working at that job as they are in this "movement" the majority would have jobs and be excelling at them. Spending your days protesting is NOT going to help the unemployment rate. And that's just my two cents regarding the chart you linked to.

As for the Occupy movement as a whole, I don't agree with it. I'm a strong believer in capitalism. Being selfish helps our economy as a whole grow; worry about your situation, not the situation of those who are doing better than you. Wanting more for yourself and your family in turn driving YOU to work harder is what will help this economy recuperate. Instead of focusing on the fact that you're part of the "99%" of the country that's "poor" use that energy to work harder and better your own life.

@Navy_Mommy: I'm going to try to address some of your points:

"You can't get a job where you live? Move."

This is not always an option. What if I don't have a job but my husband does? Should he quit his job and move so that I can find a job? At what point would that be worth it? The unemployment rate doesn't just mean single people - it's people in families too. It's possible the family is still scraping by with one person working, but the other person is still unemployed and can't find a job in their area.

"Can't find a job in your field? Try something else."

I agree completely. My father, an IT specialist, now works retail because he couldn't find his job in his field. But it still took him over a year to find a job. People weren't hiring for IT positions, and other positions told him he was "too qualified" and didn't want to hire someone with his background because they knew the position would be "beneath him" and he would eventually want to leave. It's not always as easy as looking elsewhere to get a job.

"Something I think a lot of people around my age have an issue with (I'm 23, I graduated college in 2010) is they don't want a job that is "below" them. But don't bitch about not having a job but only apply for jobs that are "good enough" for you."

I agree completely. I wish there were ways to get statistics on this information. Unfortunately, we can't just assume that people who are unemployed aren't looking at jobs that they see as "below" them. We simply can't know, so we can't lump everyone in this category, although I'm sure there are people that fall into it.

"And if none of that works, there's always the military."

I'm not an expert, but the military isn't always an option, right? Isn't there a certain level of fitness or ability to be eligible? What if someone is disabled? I don't know all that is necessary to qualify for the military, but I suspect it is not as simple as applying. They don't take everyone (I had a friend go to bootcamp, but was injured and received a medical discharge, so that's no longer an option for him).

And, like @mrbee said, unemployment is only one of the examples of what people are upset about. Hope my response was helpful to you.

I won't pretend to be fully educated on this topic either but from what I know - I am not supportive of this movement because a lot of it comes off as WHINING. Sure there are great points in there but when you go about it in a crazy way - stinking up a park with your feces and banging on drums - sorry, I'm going to think you are stupid and don't know what you're talking about.

And about people missing the point, well yeah, people are going to miss the point if you put "Wall Street" in your movement's title. That just makes people think that you are complaining that people are rich and you're not.

If the real problem are things like the unemployment rate and our system of taxation - shouldn't you be banging about on Capital Hill instead?

@Andrea: To answer your question of why Wall Street, I'm going to quote a blogger I enjoy:

"Why Wall Street?

Because these are the "moral hazard" people - the people who were allowed to keep their million-dollar homes and million -dollar jobs as a direct benefit of running up the government deficit. And who now refuse to pay any taxes that would go to relieving or paying off that debt."

Source: http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2011/11/tea-party-and-occupy-wall-street.html

@Andrea: Very true. The problem is two-sided: the fact that it's allowed and the fact that people do it.

@Andrea: Agreed!

I'm not sure that I'd participate but I think it's good to get people talking.

I think our system is messed up. So much of what started the financial crises is people making big bucks off of stock games. I don't think most people with a conscious could do those kinds of things, they're either ignorant of their actions effecting others or too callous to care that they're playing games with people's homes and earnings.

Corporations that make billions have their employees living in poverty because they have the gall to try to raise children on their measly salaries. I keep seeing the argument well get a better job, sorry but someone has to take the garbage heaps away, someone is going to work at Walmart (unless it goes out of business please).

That's why I try not to shop at big corporate places, if you're raking in billions on the backs of people struggling then you're a bad person.