Occupy… your afternoon commute :/

[americancyclo]

@Tim Kelley 10947 wrote:

All 30 of them.

Does that mean that Arlingtonians are more employed and less disenfranchised than folks elsewhere, or are they a lesser part of the 99% (87%?)

[consularrider]

I can only see about ten on the Virginia end of the bridge with a couple of small signs. There is one blue light special. I can’t see much of the the DC end, but it looks like there are people standing on the upstream side of the bridge a little past midspan, can’t see the down stream side from my office building. However, traffic is moving easily, if slowly (a good thing!) across the bridge.

[SteveTheTech]

Blocking traffic during a commute out of the city is not something that will win too much sympathy among the locals.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2636784

Hope everyone made it home fine.

[MCL1981]

I wonder how much this ()#&$*(#&$ cost me in taxes. Which of course, none of them need to worry about since none of them go to work and pay taxes.

[SteveTheTech]

I was unable to find a reliable source with compiled data and 15 minutes before I need to be at work is not the time to figure that out. A quick google shows hundreds of articles on individual municipalities reporting costs for pay the cops overtime to protect these folks from…these folks. I’m sure the total is quite a bit.

Good intentions tend to be thwarted by a small group all the time.

I really wonder what the long term implications will be for those who would actually support change of some sort…the working class that can’t set up in a shanty town. It looks like no matter what you occupy things will continue to be the same.

[WillStewart]

@MCL1981 10960 wrote:

I wonder how much this ()#&$*(#&$ cost me in taxes.

On that subject, there’s a much bigger picture – the top 1% tax cuts that drive (and keep) the deficit up means that the repayment will merely come due later, which our children will have to pick up so that millionaires and billionaires can have their 10 houses and 3 yachts today.

[DismalScientist]

Can we please talk about sex or religion rather than politics?:rolleyes:

[baiskeli]

@MCL1981 10960 wrote:

I wonder how much this ()#&$*(#&$ cost me in taxes. Which of course, none of them need to worry about since none of them go to work and pay taxes.

You have no idea if they work or not.

Considering that Warren Buffett recently pointed out that his secretary is taxed at a higher rate than he is, maybe you should stop and think about the issues they’re trying to get you to think about though.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 10975 wrote:

Can we please talk about sex or religion rather than politics?:rolleyes:

Those are different?

[Jsnyd]

I agree but I don’t. Sure I would like it a little easier for the middle class but punishing capitalism is un-American. So is abusing the 1st amendment by using it as a scape goat while occupying private property, making threats towards police and taking craps in public. I’m mainly talking about Zuccati Park. Those 1% create jobs, buy boats, buy homes and its good for the economy. There are some that should be monitored after receiving a tax cut because that money “should” be used for more jobs but is sometimes not. I could be wrong, just my two cents

—
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.845381,-76.949904

[DaveK]

…honk if you’re horny?

[dasgeh]

@WillStewart 10972 wrote:

On that subject, there’s a much bigger picture – the top 1% tax cuts that drive (and keep) the deficit up means that the repayment will merely come due later, which our children will have to pick up so that millionaires and billionaires can have their 10 houses and 3 yachts today.

Don’t forget the artificially low cost of driving (gas tax and other fees on cars), so the rest of us have to bear the cost of the externalities of driving (polution, roads, etc).

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart 10972 wrote:

On that subject, there’s a much bigger picture – the top 1% tax cuts that drive (and keep) the deficit up means that the repayment will merely come due later, which our children will have to pick up so that millionaires and billionaires can have their 10 houses and 3 yachts today.

I didn’t want to get into politics, but I must respond. There are no tax cuts proposed or recently implemented for the top 1%. Certainly, there was an extension of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 at the end of 2010. Certainly it was argued that the 2001 tax cuts favored the wealthy, but the 2001 tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive. The big money was not in the rate reductions, but rather the child tax credits. These were phased out for the wealthy and therefore could not benefit the top 1%, despite the political rhetoric.
The 2003 tax cuts reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains. The incidence of taxes on capital is a very tricky thing because business do not pay taxes, but instead collect taxes that are part of their pre-tax profits. These corporate taxes are passed on to customers through high prices, to workers through lower wages, or to shareholders through lower after tax returns. (Having shareholders/business owners “pay” these taxes on capital through taxes on dividends or capital gains does not matter, as companies can change how capital is returned to investors. Note that when dividend taxes fell, companies returned more in dividends rather than retain the capital.) Many folks make the assumption that taxes on capital are “paid” by shareholders in the top 1%, but this is simply not so.
Defining the top 1% is difficult. Having a large capital gain in one particular year might put a taxpayer the in top 1% in terms of adjusted gross income. Does one year’s capital gain make one a millionaire? I think not.
To get in the top 1% takes less money than one might think. According to the Tax Foundation, to be in the top 1%, you need an adjusted gross income of $343,947. This means that there are a lot of families whose breadwinners suckle at the taxpayers’ teat (directly and indirectly) in this area that are very close to the top 1%.

[DismalScientist]

@baiskeli 10976 wrote:

You have no idea if they work or not.

Considering that Warren Buffett recently pointed out that his secretary is taxed at a higher rate than he is, maybe you should stop and think about the issues they’re trying to get you to think about though.

Unfortunately, Uncle Warren has a problem confusing average and marginal tax rates. His average income tax rate was a little over 17 percent. (This does not include the taxes paid by the companies in which he invested, which should be included in this calculation since taxes on capital income are assessed at multiple levels. As I discussed in my post responding to Will, how the incidence should be calculated is tricky.) His secretary is in the 25% marginal tax bracket, but her average tax rate is likely to be around 7%. Just plug her numbers into a 1040 EZ and find out!

[WillStewart]

The DC area possesses a high concentration of highly educated people, so deflections and FUD tricks that work on less-educated people are rather useless here.

@DismalScientist 10995 wrote:

There are no tax cuts proposed or recently implemented for the top 1%.

Everyone knows that we are talking about the Bush tax cuts, so such a rhetorical maneuver carries no water.

@DismalScientist 10995 wrote:

Certainly it was argued that the 2001 tax cuts favored the wealthy, but the 2001 tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive.

Your claim is highly debatable, especially when taken in light of the deficit it engendered, but the tax cuts for the rich occurred in 2003, so the focus should be primarily on those in this discussion.

@DismalScientist 10995 wrote:

The 2003 tax cuts reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains. The incidence of taxes on capital is a very tricky thing…

The dramatic increase in income inequality is the end result, ‘tricky’ rhetoric notwithstanding. You can’t seriously expect us to swallow such a line, especially when Buffet and a large number of millionaires/billionaires agree that they are given too many unfair tax breaks.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/11/super-committee-congress-patriotic-millionaire-tax-rates-norquist.html

@DismalScientist 10995 wrote:

Note that when dividend taxes fell, companies returned more in dividends rather than retain the capital.

Or rather than pay their workers more, hence the income inequality exacerbation.

@DismalScientist 10995 wrote:

According to the Tax Foundation, to be in the top 1%, you need an adjusted gross income of $343,947. This means that there are a lot of families whose breadwinners suckle at the taxpayers’ teat (directly and indirectly) in this area that are very close to the top 1%.

This is the functional equivalent of “Some say…”. You provide no evidence or supporting material, simply make a blanket allegation. Please provide names or official stats, or such an attempt to deflect will remain recognized as simply that.

@DismalScientist 10995 wrote:

I didn’t want to get into politics…

Of course not…

[Author]

Posts