1% CEO down in the trenches of the 99% Occupy Movement.

[sephrael]

Life isn't fair, and the rich only get richer because they're smart with their money.

Man, I love it when wealthy people say this while simultaneously bitching about their tax rates not being fair.

[Hyve]

[Please insert insult of your choosing.]

Feel free to keep your abusive opinion. Truth does hurt, and I'm not expecting to be made popular by the truth.

The banks needed bailing out, the banks needed billions of pounds of tax payer money, you want to know why?

Because a lot of their investments failed, a lot of their loans where not getting repaid, a lot of people took mortages larger then they could repay by lying about their income. You know who contributed to these major failings? Those under £30,000 a year.

Most of the people who refused or couldn't repay the loans, where under £30,000 a year and this means that when the banks got no money back from these people, they needed bailing out.

Hating bankers and the rich is always going to happen in times of recession, but they're more then happy to live off their successes and taxes during prosperity but hate them when their own faults (the poor) make a recession.

[tohyatvc]

The poor are in the recession because they created it themselves.

This clearly is not the only thing at work here. Poor people were probably poor before, and have a tiny overall impact on the economy of a nation, in increased wealth, or in debt.
If you're blaming the people that couldn't pay the obligations they set in to - such as a mortgage or a risky loan - then yes, you're right in that sense. However, the banks at the time were not averse to this, even if they knew it was a bad decision, they took it, often mixing it in a portfolio with other less risky investments, and traded it around based in its likely value in the future. A useful way to keep bloating your own perceived value. Lending, as you well know (I didn't realise before you were actually in this sector) is always created by simply assuming your current debtors will pay. This is an endless cycle that can never really balance out. It creates bubbles, and unhealthy fluctuations in the economy, often heavily skewed in favour of the banking sector itself.

[Hyve]

Man, I love it when wealthy people say this while simultaneously bitching about their tax rates not being fair.

I'm not bitching about the taxes I pay.

I choose to live in the U.K. because I live in a lovely part of the world, but considering that my company pays 65% tax, that my personal tax is extremely high and for what? To fund the NHS for people who have a cold and need a doctor, people who drink and need a transplant?

I choose to live in the U.K. but should taxes & VAT go up (which they will) or Labour gets in ever again, i'll just move to Cyprus and pay a mere 6 - 8% tax, with a better infrastructure, better weather and a better social attitude.

---------- Post added 2011-12-15 at 12:33 PM ----------

This clearly is not the only thing at work here. Poor people were probably poor before, and have a tiny overall impact on the economy of a nation, in increased wealth, or in debt.
If you're blaming the people that couldn't pay the obligations they set in to - such as a mortgage or a risky loan - then yes, you're right in that sense. However, the banks at the time loved to do this, even if they knew it was a bad decision, they took it, often mixing it in a portfolio with other less risky investments, and traded it around based in its likely value in the future. Lending, as you well know (I didn't realise before you were actually in this sector) is always created by simply assuming your current debtors will pay. This is an endless cycle that can never really balance out. It creates bubbles, and unhealthy fluctuations in the economy, often heavily skewed into the banking sector itself.

I agree that the banks knew this would come, but Labour actually promoted it. They let it go on and actually let the banks do it by reassuring them there is no financial issues ahead.

Labour appealed to the poorer people at their success because they offered people more then they could afford. Offering £5 of services when the country only made £1. Using all the countries reserves that the conservatives had built up to fund it.

Sure, as I said before the Banks, The Rich, The Poor and EVERYONE played a part, I don't deny that. What I don't like is when people believe that it was purely the Rich & Banks. There was much more to it, and everyone contributed.

[tohyatvc]

What I don't like is when people believe that it was purely the Rich & Banks. There was much more to it, and everyone contributed.

Of course a complex story like this is more deep than most people care to investigate. Don't pay too much heed to the people who don't care to back up their statements.

I agree that the banks knew this would come, but Labour actually promoted it. They let it go on and actually let the banks do it by reassuring them there is no financial issues ahead.

I absolutely agree that Labour did nothing to stop it all. The financial bubble in Labour's time helped improve their image, of course they want the country to appear prosperous, even though a lot of it was smoke and mirrors.

However I don't think the tories are the cure-all that you hold them to be. Selling off our countries assets over the years to the highest bidder has been a cornerstone of their financial planning, and I'm not convinced that is a long term view either.

[Gheld]

I'm the 41%! the 99% is really only the 9%(unemployed) and I'm happy with what the 1% pays me for my hard work. So the 9% (aka 99%) doesn't speak for me.

I can comfortably say ALL the occupiers are unemployed because I know if I called into work and said that "I can't come in to work today... I have to occupy stuff..." I would be unemployed.

[Hyve]

Government regulation needs to absolutely stamp down on the banking system hard. Small changes will not make a difference. They need to absolutely slash the power of private banks; who use their power to change the economy to such unhealthy degrees.

Banks in the U.K. pay more tax then almost any other company in any other country. I've spoken with some of the top bankers in the UK and I am warning you now. Should they keep getting pushed this hard, they'll just leave to somewhere with cheaper tax, better work attitudes and more infrastructure.

And if the banks leave, then you're in for a depression. The country will collapse and we'll be Greece v2.0. Despite what people think, the banks (who did make major mistakes) are the only real thing holding this country up.

David Cameron and the Conservatives see this, and vetoed the EU Treaty to prevent the power being taken from London, knowing it would cause a UK collapse. Labour want to hound the Banks until they repay all the countries Debt. I dread the day they get back in, as i'll leave and watch the blood bath from somewhere else.

There will be riots, there will be deaths, there will be chaos when this country goes to a 2 day week because the banks left.

[Deleted]

"I pay much more than 35% of my income in cash"

Funny thing, most of your wealth doesn´t come from "cash income", but from other sources that are taxed much lower. And these people should stop to pretend like the are responsible for creating jobs (net)

http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-harvardberkeley.htm

The U.S. has the most unequal society of all rich nations, and by far. These other nations have higher taxes and better-funded social programs to alleviate poverty, and their progressive social policies have resulted in more equal societies. So who has the worst health statistics, mortality rates, crime rates, sedentary lifestyles, economic growth and other social problems? The U.S., usually by far. (10)

Some conservatives try to nullify this observation by playing the race card, by pointing out that blacks drag down the U.S. statistics. However, the U.S. still compares worse to other rich nations even when blacks are removed from the statistics completely.

And, well, the countries with the highest taxes are coincidentally some of the best countries to live in: Sweden, Norway, Finland etc.

[Hyve]

"I pay much more than 35% of my income in cash"

Funny thing, most of your wealth doesn´t come from "cash income", but from other sources that are taxed much lower. And these people should stop to pretend like the are responsible for creating jobs (net) http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

If i'm understanding you right, you believe the rich and companies don't make jobs?

If that is the case i'd love to know where else these people will work, because the Public Sector can't support itself.

[Stir]

Because a lot of their investments failed, a lot of their loans where not getting repaid, a lot of people took mortages larger then they could repay by lying about their income. You know who contributed to these major failings? Those under £30,000 a year.

Those loans, especially mortgages, should never have been made available to the people who couldn't afford them. I'm not blaming banks entirely, though they certainly did play a part. I'm blaming the housing market and the rapid decline of 'social rent.'
A lot of banks and building corps really profited from this whole thing. Well; not the banks as companies; they got drained to no end. But a lot of people got wealthy of this thing.
When a person of below-average income wants a home, and they go to a bank, the bank should just tell them that a mortgage of that amount is not allowed because the bank doesn't expect the person to be able to pay. However, THIS is the situation:

Poor git buys house with mortgage.
Mortgage is high, but affordable. Poor git pays mortgage for two or three years.
Interest rates go up. Mortgage is no longer affordable. Poor git cannot pay bills.
This adds up. Bank confiscates house. Bank sells house to new poor git.

Result: PROFIT.

However, this is not sustainable.
CEO of bank rides this baby for as long as they can, then abandon ship. Nice bonus, good profits made.

Result: Banks need bailout. Banks, for some odd reason, use those bailouts on employee bonusses. Economy falters. Mortgage-situation becomes worse and worse.

By simply being honest with Poor Git, the bank could have prevented this. However, the short-term profits of the mortgage-foreclosure structure were just too good, weren't they?

[tohyatvc]

Banks in the U.K. pay more tax then almost any other company in any other country.

No doubt, but this isn't what I'm talking about. You constantly tax higher and higher you get nowhere, you end up spinning your wheels because you're always draining money from somewhere else. I didn't state that they needed to tax and tax. I am definitely not somebody who thinks complicated tax systems are the solution to problems.

They need to regulate them more closely to reduce the risk to people's money, that they have entrusted in the banking system - and we need to get inflation under control. House prices have to drop, in my opinion, and although lots of people stand to lose money (or already have) because of it, we can't afford to keep the often unrealistic figures higher than the average person can afford, or we risk simply getting in the same situation again. More risky mortgages, temporary bubble as people sell houses for inflated prices due to increased confidence in the market, then more failed mortgages.

[Gheld]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7B81QL20111209

This is where the occupy movement stands on free speech.
This is why anybody who takes them seriously is a tool.

<Infracted> People on these forums support OWS. Please do not insult them.

[LurkerOnly]

Feel free to keep your abusive opinion. Truth does hurt, and I'm not expecting to be made popular by the truth.

The banks needed bailing out, the banks needed billions of pounds of tax payer money, you want to know why?

Because a lot of their investments failed, a lot of their loans where not getting repaid, a lot of people took mortages larger then they could repay by lying about their income. You know who contributed to these major failings? Those under £30,000 a year.

Most of the people who refused or couldn't repay the loans, where under £30,000 a year and this means that when the banks got no money back from these people, they needed bailing out.

Hating bankers and the rich is always going to happen in times of recession, but they're more then happy to live off their successes and taxes during prosperity but hate them when their own faults (the poor) make a recession.

Bolded statement plus "the rich are richer because they're smarter with their money."

The implication being, that the rich shouldn't be allowed to fail, because since they've theoretically proven they're smarter with their money, they should continue to be trusted after they fail, implication being the failure was an accident they couldn't control.

Overall implication is that it's okay for some people to fail, and they should be handed a government check.

Just not if they live in a trailer or a black neighborhood, for example.

Is there some reason people shouldn't be offended by this hypocrisy? But, why bother. People are so brainwashed about what the economy even means, that they refuse to understand and internalize that the entire economy is based on this idea that it's okay for loans to be given regardless of whether the money loaned even exists, because you can just blame the person who didn't pay it off (who often can't pay it off because their employer is losing money on these kinds of loans, either in interest or because they're the ones giving out unregulated loans) instead of the guy who's loaning money he doesn't even have to someone to buy a home based on the theoretical income from interest on loans that have already been given out, unregulated.

It's a foregone conclusion, mathematically provable, that a certain percentage of the population will actually be guaranteed to default on loans in such a scenario, regardless of their choices, because the only money in the economy is the interest on all the loans, which will never add up to the amount loaned.

Nobody seems to want to acknowledge that, however.

[sephrael]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7B81QL20111209

This is where the occupy movement stands on free speech.
This is why anybody who takes them seriously is a tool.

What does your link even have to do with free speech..?

[Hyve]

No doubt, but this isn't what I'm talking about. You constantly tax higher and higher you get nowhere, you end up spinning your wheels because you're always draining money from somewhere else. I didn't state that they needed to tax and tax. I am definitely not somebody who thinks complicated tax systems are the solution to problems.

They need to regulate them more closely to reduce the risk to people's money, that they have entrusted in the banking system - and we need to get inflation under control. House prices have to drop, in my opinion, and although lots of people stand to lose money (or already have) because of it, we can't afford to keep the often unrealistic figures higher than the average person can afford, or we risk simply getting in the same situation again. More risky mortgages, temporary bubble as people sell houses for inflated prices due to increased confidence in the market, then more failed mortgages.

Aahh, sorry for the misunderstanding.

There has been more regulation now. Business Investments made by banks are now separate from the Loans, Mortgages & personal investments meaning should one area fail, the bank is still stable.

They've also been given more safeguards so situations like this shouldn't arise again.

I do agree, higher tax gets no-where. A 10% taxation at source would fix this countries issues within 3 years. Pay tax when you buy something, because the rich & poor spend money equivalent to their income. (The are some cases where this isn't true of course). Someone who earns a ton of money would spend more money giving more of their tax (10%), while a poorer person would still spend their 10% on whatever they buy.

[Deleted]

If i'm understanding you right, you believe the rich and companies don't make jobs?

If that is the case i'd love to know where else these people will work, because the Public Sector can't support itself.

Thats not what I am saying. What I am saying is, that the dogma of "if you cut taxes for the richest of the rich, they will create tons ob jobs for others" isn´t true. It just doesn´t happen. And if they create a lot of new jobs, they are usually not very well-paid.

By the way, most people are employed by the government and middle-of-the-pack companies and not by the small number of mega-companies/-coorporations.


@Thornar

Well, the UK realizes that the only thing they are good at right now, is their financial sector. They have to defend it, because they think they have no other choice. Have fun with the next collapse.

[Primernova]

Stuffed suit, who is doing (presumably) nothing illegal, laughs in the face of voters because his situation is perfect, Plutonomy.

Occupy is very unfocused but people like the Buisness Asshole, featured in the video are a side effect, not the cause.

The rich should not foot the bill for this recession but the government and their own foul deeds (catering to big buisness because they fund their elections) should not have closed down the Middle Class's ability to vote for change and fund the recovery on their own.

It's a devilish catch 22 but mostly a complete breakdown of democracy.

It's like the fairly poor movie, The Button it was a stupid movie but had a good moral. The button was offered up by Lil' Dubya and boy did they pound that thing.

Legal =/= moral or even human if you look at the blood on their hands.

[Deleted]

The point that the '99%' are trying to make is that the 1% make so much more money than them it is unfair. However, the 1% are not just people like CEOs and others on millions a year, they include people on wages like £100,000 a year. You increase the tax from 50% to 60% on the 1%, the CEOs may not get to buy that condo in Spain this year, but you do it on the people with £100,000 a year, and suddenly that family that person is supporting takes a massive dive in quality of life.

The other point is, aimed at the CEOs, as many people have said, if they increased the taxes, the high earners will just sell their companies / straight up move to another country, and we will end up losing more state income than we gain, putting us in a worse situation economically than we are now, just for the satisfaction of the people who are now unemployed because they have spent the last few weeks on the street, rather than actually working to get a better life for themselves rather than hoping their respective governments will do it for them.

[tohyatvc]

I do agree, higher tax gets no-where.

I'm moving to Denmark at some point, and this is probably the most maddening thing about their country. Everyone seems OK that their tax system is obtuse, pig-headed, complex; and their welfare system is absolute nonsense.

[Nathanyel]

Sure, as I said before the Banks, The Rich, The Poor and EVERYONE played a part, I don't deny that. What I don't like is when people believe that it was purely the Rich & Banks. There was much more to it, and everyone contributed.

But but I need specific persons to blame! After all, it is us, the upstanding and enlightened people, oppressed by a handful of evildoers, instead of a system failing due to our race's instincts!