0
0

One more reason why OWS will continue to grow


 invite response                
2011 Oct 29, 5:30pm   3,817 views  19 comments

by Buster   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

May I point you in the direction of this NYT story where a foreclosure firm dressed up for Halloween as homeless folks thrown out of their homes. Mocking the real pain that folks suffer and the pathetic callousness that these asswipes exhibit. I want to so HURT these groups and companies in the worst possible way. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opinion/what-the-costumes-reveal.html?_r=2

#housing

Comments 1 - 19 of 19        Search these comments

1   thomas.wong1986   2011 Oct 30, 3:26am  

Hollywood capitalists denounce Wall Street

The Occupy Wall Street movement would grow significantly larger if some of its most visible supporters brought their accountants and tax lawyers to the anti-Wall Street demonstrations.

A long list of wealthy celebrities -- most of whom fall easily within the top 1 percent of U.S. income earners -- has enlisted in the cause of the so-called 99 percent who don't make the big bucks. The protesters have voiced many grievances, but their chief concern seems to be the growing gap between the richest 1 percent of Americans and everyone else.

Entertainers like Rosanne Barr and rapper Kanye West are riled up over the income gap. It can be argued that they -- and other anti-Wall Street celebrities like actor Alec Baldwin -- have contributed to income inequality by pulling in dollars from the 99 percent. But a sense of irony is not evident in the Hollywood community, so it's unlikely that the stars recognize the hypocrisy of very rich people protesting the excesses of capitalism.

Clad in a $350 Givenchy shirt, West put in an appearance at the site of the New York City protest. Barr has angrily called for the "beheading" of the super rich who make even more money than she does.

According to Celebrity Networth, Barr is one of the richest of the rich-bashers. Barr's net worth is a cool $80 million. Among the Occupy Wall Street stars, only hip hop mogul Russell Simmons ($325 million) and Yoko Ono ($500 million) have larger fortunes than Barr.

Filmmaker Michael Moore, who got his start in the entertainment industry with a movie that vilified U.S. auto industry executives, has rolled up $50 million over his career as a sloppily dressed champion of the underclass. Alec Baldwin is sixth on the Celebrity Networth list, with $65 million.

This is saying something, but Baldwin may have a bigger mote in his eye than any other Occupy celebrity. He is an undoubtedly well-paid TV spokesman for Capital One, the nation's eighth-largest bank. The Occupy Wall Street crowd heaps verbal abuse on big banks like Capital One, which, according to the New York Daily News, received a $3.5 billion bailout during the financial crisis.

When he visited the New York protesters, Baldwin defended capitalism and banks while criticizing financial regulators, the Daily News reported. So maybe Baldwin isn't hypocritical -- or maybe he's in training for a new career in political spin control.

Celebrity Networth says the top 10 Occupy celebrities have a combined net worth of $1.25 billion. That's a lot of wealth concentrated in a few hands. But we see nothing wrong with actors, singers and comedians using their talents to amass personal fortunes.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/opinion/editorials/n-j-editorials/2011/10/30/hollywood-capitalists-denounce-wall-street.html

2   TPB   2011 Oct 30, 3:27am  

I encourage you to look at the photographs with this column on the Web. Then judge for yourself the veracity of Steven J. Baum’s denial.

OK I'm ready!
There's not one shred of proof those photos came from a party hosted by who the author claims. FAIK those photos could have been taken in the offices of ACORN.

Where's key people associated, where's actual pictures that prove the photos are legit and come from said source?

More propaganda from the Pig Farm.

Oh and it doesn't do it justice that it's in an "Opinion" piece.

You know, THEY used to report the news. And had this story been true, then it would be news. Or at least if those out of context photos were proof of the authors claims, it would be news.

3   TPB   2011 Oct 30, 3:40am  

thomas.wong1986 says

Filmmaker Michael Moore, who got his start in the entertainment industry with a movie that vilified U.S. auto industry executives, has rolled up $50 million over his career as a sloppily dressed champion of the underclass. Alec Baldwin is sixth on the Celebrity Networth list, with $65 million.

Michael Moore also championed Ralph Nader in 2000 telling people to vote with their conscious. Then in 2004 he told people don't vote because it makes you feel good.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/10/26/damn-you-ralph-nader-and-katherine-harris/

Damn You, Ralph Nader and Katherine Harris!
Of all the daily affirmations liberals tell themselves, none soothes me more than the one about how an Al Gore presidency would have spared us the Iraq War. Why, wasn’t Al suitably smug about Dubya’s “cowboy” act in 2002? Didn’t Michael Moore open Fahrenheit 9/11 with a long rehash of hanging-chad chicanery? Who among us doesn’t yearn for the invention of time travel so that someone might mow down a certain consumer advocate with a sporty Corvair?

And yet … well, there is this from the Oct. 11, 2000, presidential debate:

MODERATOR: Well, let’s stay on the subject for a moment. New question related to this. I figured this out; in the last 20 years there have been eight major actions that involved the introduction of U.S. ground, air or naval forces. Let me name them. Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president for any of those interventions, would any of those interventions not have happened?

GORE: Can you run through the list again?

MODERATOR: Sure. Lebanon.

GORE: I thought that was a mistake. [See below.]

MODERATOR: Grenada.

GORE: I supported that.

MODERATOR: Panama.

GORE: I supported that.

MODERATOR: Persian Gulf.

GORE: Yes, I voted for it, supported it.

MODERATOR: Somalia.

GORE: Of course, and that again — no, I think that that was ill-considered. I did support it at the time. It was in the previous administration, in the Bush-Quayle administration, and I think in retrospect the lessons there are ones that we should take very, very seriously.

MODERATOR: Bosnia.

GORE: Oh, yes.

MODERATOR: Haiti.

GORE: Yes.

MODERATOR: And then Kosovo.

GORE: Yes.

4   Â¥   2011 Oct 30, 3:51am  

thomas.wong1986 says

But we see nothing wrong with actors, singers and comedians using their talents to amass personal fortunes.

Entertainment is a great way to make money.

Make a movie for $X million, sell X million tickets, make a bundle -- Capitalism does not require lowering your profit margins.

Yet nobody is forced to go see a movie, and this is what really separates entertainers from parasitical leeches in finance, health services, insurance, real estate, and energy.

It's not the money or income, it's how you got it. Some people earn it, some people skim it, some people just inherit it.

It wasn't until I discovered Henry George's arguments from the late 1800s that this became apparent to me.

5   Buster   2011 Oct 30, 4:04am  

Let me remind all that the entire point of OWS is not to vilify those who make good coin. OWS DOES have a problem with those who make good coin only because the laws favor them, or when they choose to disregard the laws, again, they are treated differently and are not held accountable or punished for their law breaking. What we want is fairness. Not privatized profits on public sharing of financial blunders of the banks for example. Why do we have corporate welfare for example. There is an ever growing list of mega multinational corporations that pay ZERO US taxes, less taxes than even a poor person. We are asking for fairness. Make as much money as you can. We don't care. Just be ethical and play by fair rules. As of today, neither are applicable for the 1%. It is optional, far from mandatory.

6   thomas.wong1986   2011 Oct 30, 4:06am  

Jobs and Income Growth of Top Earners and the Causes of Changing Income
Inequality: Evidence from U.S. Tax Return Data

Table 2 -- Percentage of primary taxpayers in top one percent of the distribution of income (excluding capital gains) that are in each occupation

Not the Banks many on OWS are talking about.

Table 10... No suprise.. RE profession was the largest increase in incomes... 18%

Of course.. not a word .. not a single word regarding RE agent regulation or changing their behavior.

http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/faculty/pdf/heim_JobsIncomeGrowthTopEarners.pdf

7   thomas.wong1986   2011 Oct 30, 4:07am  

Buster says

mega multinational corporations that pay ZERO US taxes

List of names please...

8   thomas.wong1986   2011 Oct 30, 4:13am  

Bellingham Bill says

Yet nobody is forced to go see a movie, and this is what really separates entertainers from parasitical leeches in finance, health services, insurance, real estate, and energy

leeches ? What is the fucking difference? I dont recall WS talking about "Buy now or be priced out forever". Frankly some like Stephen Roach, at Morgan Stanley, kept warning the housing/debt bubble will not be pretty.
Heck throw in Goldman Sachs John Talbott as early as 2003.

9   Â¥   2011 Oct 30, 4:23am  

thomas.wong1986 says

Frankly some like Stephen Roach, at Morgan Stanley, kept warning the housing/debt bubble will not be pretty.

I didn't mean to imply that everyone in finance is a leech. Finance can in fact be a wealth-creating sector of the economy. Apple became Apple Computer Inc thanks to Steve Jobs getting hooked up with venture capital at the right time.

But for every positive example there is a negative example of their parasitical nature -- there's plenty of skimming going on on Wall Steet

10   mdovell   2011 Oct 30, 4:23am  

Well the concept of multinational just means where a company operates but that does not mean where they are incorporated out of. So technically yes there are companies incorporated in other countries that do not have to pay taxes but that goes for the whole planet.

GM is incorporated in the USA they don't have to pay income taxes in Canada. Sony is incorporated in Japan so therefore they don't have to pay to the US or canada.

Acting as a withholding agent is compliance for employees taxes that is not considered paying a tax.

On a side note how exactly do sports players pay taxes when they play in so many states and reside in only one?

Heck many non profits have people on payroll that make significant amounts but the OWS has no clue about it. Non profits simply don't have shareholders and don't pay taxes.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/29/news/companies/nonprofit_salary/index.htm

Someone might be for the "arts" but the CEO is still making 2.7 million.

11   TPB   2011 Oct 30, 4:35am  

Buster says

OWS DOES have a problem with those who make good coin only because the laws favor them, or when they choose to disregard the laws, again, they are treated differently and are not held accountable or punished for their law breaking.

You understand the those that make good coin aren't the ones making the laws to favor them? But if you look to these people to hold them accountable for those you've voted into office actions. Then essentially YOU'RE effectively at that moment, placing your constituency in their wardship.

And as you know... Well good luck with that.

You schmucks should be in Washington D.C. not the City park.
This is OWS America's "Reality Show", group parlor game.
This is a culmination of flash mobbing random pointless public displays with no regard to civic duty.

Of course that's just one of the problems I have with the OWS movement. Albeit the biggest, the other I have is, what some want to say OWS is about(Corporate Greed), really is no different than what the Tea Party was saying in the early stages. Yet it was written off as the Racist White Man railing against everyone else. Then they were co-opted into the GOP.

They're still growing, though most of their candidates aren't Tea Party members at all, but instead Republicans that the Tea Party endorses, could be due to lack of quality suitable hard core "Let's get the bastards" in their ranks. But who knows, the GOP does have deep pockets.

I don't fore see OWS or any movement doing much of nothing, until that movement focuses on Washington, with a plan with a leader with a purpose, and not affiliated with any party.
Else they will just end up part of the problem, a tool both parties use to sway public opinion or I should say "public debate". To get one of the same two parties elected anyway.

But complaining to the subway clerk, about my parking ticket doesn't help my cause.

12   thomas.wong1986   2011 Oct 30, 4:37am  

mdovell says

GM is incorporated in the USA they don't have to pay income taxes in Canada. Sony is incorporated in Japan so therefore they don't have to pay to the US or canada

Your parent company may be incorporated in the US and pays US Taxes. Their subsidiaries also pay foreign taxes in each respected country of operations. So US companies pay global taxes. The same is true with foreign companies doing business in US.. they do pay US Income Tax (Fed/State), Payroll Tax, Property Tax, Business Tax and Collect state sales taxes.

13   HousingWatcher   2011 Oct 30, 7:43am  

thomas.wong1986 says

Buster says

mega multinational corporations that pay ZERO US taxes

List of names please...

G.E. Whirlpool. Bank of America. CitiGroup. GM. The list goes on.

14   thomas.wong1986   2011 Oct 30, 12:12pm  

Whirlpool/GE.

Extending the tax credit for energy-efficient appliances through 2012 would cost the government $235 million, according to the first updated congressional estimate since officials acknowledged that they did not realize how much companies including Whirlpool Corp. (WHR) and General Electric Co. (GE) were benefiting from the tax incentive.

The credit, enacted in 2005, provides fixed-dollar amounts to companies that increase production of high-efficiency dishwashers, clothes washers and refrigerators that meet standards set out in the tax code. " AKA Energy Star Label "

The law caps the credits any company can receive for 2011 at $25 million for most appliances. Companies that manufacture the clothes washers and refrigerators that meet the highest efficiency standards are eligible for uncapped credits of $225 and $200 per appliance, respectively.

Obama voted for the orginal 2005 act and supports a one-year extension of the appliance credit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-18/appliance-tax-credit-for-whirlpool-ge-gets-higher-price-tag.html?cmpid=yhoo

National Appliance Energy Conservation Act

All of these laws and regulations have to do with creating mandatory standards that deal with the energy efficiency of certain household appliances. These standards were put in place to ensure that manufacturers were building products that are at the maximum energy efficiency levels are that are technically feasible and economically justified

Energy Policy Act of 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note many people confuse corporate earnings report per SEC filings and taxable earnings per IRS code. If you didnt earn anything.. you dont pay taxes on it.. .just like individuals. NOL Losses are recongnized in current and maybe prior year extending forward up to 20 years.

Bank of America Pays No Taxes, Gets $1B Refund: Report

will pay no Federal taxes for 2010, instead receiving a refund of $1 billion, the Charlotte Observer pointed out in an article published Friday.

The bank told the newspaper the reason is that the bank lost $5.4 billion before taxes in 2010.

Whats NOL? http://taxation.lawyers.com/income-tax/Net-Operating-Loss-Carryback-and-Carryforward-Rules.html

Generally, when you have a NOL at the end of the year (this is called the "NOL year"), then you have to carryback the whole NOL to the two tax years before the NOL year. This is called the "carryback period." Then, if there's any leftover NOL after the carry back period, you carryforward the balance for up to 20 years after the NOL year (the "carryforward period"). You can't deduct any part of the NOL after the carryforward period.

You can waive the two-year carryback period and use the NOL for the carryforward period only. This may be advantageous if your taxable income in the past two years was low or if you expect to have a lot of taxable income after the NOL year. To waive the carryback period, you need to attach a statement to your original tax return for the NOL year specifying that you're waiving the carryback period under Internal Revenue Code § 172(b)(3).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CitiGroup and GM - The same .. NOL carryforward/backward due to IRS reported losses.

15   Katy Perry   2011 Oct 30, 12:38pm  

If you really own your home, it's a bit harder to lose it BTW (taxes, law suit. oweing HOA) I love how it's said that they are losing their home. it was never their home in the first place the only thing they owned was a loan.
you don't own your home untill you really own your home. The Bank thinks they own something to. And it's you and your labor little worker bee
Debt is Slavery!

16   Katy Perry   2011 Oct 30, 12:40pm  

Just imagine the system is such that they have convinced us that a 30 year mortgage is a good thing.
how much would houses cost if you could not borrow one with a loan?

17   Buster   2011 Oct 30, 2:27pm  

The GOP says

I don't fore see OWS or any movement doing much of nothing, until that movement focuses on Washington, with a plan with a leader with a purpose, and not affiliated with any party.

OWS does not need another 'hero' or failed leader. Also, there is a purpose. And no, a major difference between OWS and the Tea Party is that the TP is an extension of the GOP. The OWS is NOT an extension of the Democratic or Republican party. Of course, folks like Obama has already made moves to try to co opt OWS as his own. Just speak with any OWS member their opinion of Obama. They know he is just as corrupt as any Republican and only cares about where he can get the most money and influence. He has chosen WS and the 1% as his friends, and the populist grass roots support that got him elected as mere water under the bridge and an annoyance to be disposed of or at the least kept quiet.

18   thomas.wong1986   2011 Oct 30, 3:15pm  

Buster says

He has chosen WS and the 1% as his friends

You mean the RE industry, yet untouched by any regulation like the Franks / Dodds Bill, and the rich Hollywood types.

19   corntrollio   2011 Nov 1, 5:43am  

Bellingham Bill says

I didn't mean to imply that everyone in finance is a leech. Finance can in fact be a wealth-creating sector of the economy. Apple became Apple Computer Inc thanks to Steve Jobs getting hooked up with venture capital at the right time.

But for every positive example there is a negative example of their parasitical nature -- there's plenty of skimming going on on Wall Steet

Yes, exactly. Finance is a necessary part of our economy. But we're really talking much more of the commercial banking side -- i.e. when Glass Steagall was still around. Those are the transactions that lubricated our economy. In contrast, prop trading is basically rent-seeking.

If finance was the relatively boring business it used to be, we'd all be much better off.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions