Pages

4/10/12

Occupy Wall Street is back, and they're ON Wall Street. It's really just old at this point, and they're accomplishing nothing. I flat out told them to get the f*** out before they get hurt and that they were lucky the police were there.

Seriously, getting harrassed on the way to work sucks. Protesters: GET OUT, NO ONE CARES

Comments (226)

4/10/12

OWS is a joke. It's a social gathering now, not a protest. More than half of the people don't have any views on anything, or even know what they're protesting. It's a pure joke.

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

4/10/12

Don't nuke our imagination bra!

But more on point, ya they're tools most of whom don't really belong there, and then there are criminals, but like I told my roommate when he wanted to swing at a guy in Boston, "Just think about what they are doing, and look at what you are doing, and see who's going to be leave a more meaningful imprint in the future."

In reply to vdubben
4/10/12

I've gone from agreeing with some of their intellectual points to just despising them on a person to person level.

Get busy living

4/10/12

Occupy Boston came back as well, setting up outside the State House (at least). Last night, no fewer than 5 state cruisers were positioned blocking off the sidewalk and had kicked out all of these bums. Glad the patience for this crap has worn thin...

In reply to tiger90
4/10/12
tiger90:

Don't nuke our imagination bra!

But more on point, ya they're tools most of whom don't really belong there, and then there are criminals, but like I told my roommate when he wanted to swing at a guy in Boston, "Just think about what they are doing, and look at what you are doing, and see who's going to be leave a more meaningful imprint in the future."

Fully agree.

In reply to vdubben
4/10/12
vdubben:

OWS is a joke. It's a social gathering now, not a protest. More than half of the people don't have any views on anything, or even know what they're protesting. It's a pure joke.

4/10/12
4/10/12

Well we are getting to summer. I imagine that probably has a big role in them coming back. It's a lot easier to convince people to stand outside when it's not freezing.

4/10/12

Sorry to hear about people harassing you on your way to work.

"I am the hero of the story. I don't need to be saved."

In reply to Human
4/10/12
sxh6321:

Sorry to hear about people harassing you on your way to work.

LOL I was tired and grumpy this morning. If the hot girls want to protest in their bikinis, ok, I'm all for it, but otherwise just leave us alone. We work for the 1%, go pester them in CT/DC

Get busy living

4/10/12

They're right. There are a lot of sociopaths in this business and they cause a lot of problems. I just wish they could attack this with a scalpel rather than a chainsaw.

4/10/12

Hopefully Bloomberg will grow a damn nut sack SOON
and kick these pieces of human excrement out of NYC!

4/10/12

^^^ The protesters or the sociopaths in our industry? I say let's shut wall street down and impose a 100% tax on income over $500K for a few years. The country will be a better place for it when we're done. Capitalism has cancer, and we need chemotherapy.

It's really no skin off my nose. Given that I produce something, I'll land a job somewhere else, and money is not the most important thing in life.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
4/10/12
IlliniProgrammer:

^^^ The protesters or the sociopaths in our industry? I say let's shut wall street down and impose a 100% tax on income over $500K for a few years. The country will be a better place for it when we're done. Capitalism has cancer, and we need chemotherapy.

It's really no skin off my nose. Given that I produce something, I'll land a job somewhere else, and money is not the most important thing in life.

Is that a serious viewpoint? Where's that money going to go? Will it be absorbed by the ever expanding Obama government or redistributed to the poor/middle class? If it's redistributed, what kind of incentive does that give people to succeed in this world? Yeesh, wealth has become taboo in the U.S.

4/10/12

We could mandate that all income earned over $500K must be given to a charity of the taxpayer's choice. Otherwise, it goes to the feds to pay down the debt.

I don't mind. Money is not that important. If money is the most important thing in your life, three years of seeing every extra dollar you make beyond a certain point go to charity will change that.

I guess wealth has become taboo in the US. The coolest part is that we have the world's biggest military- we just killed Bin Ladin last year- and we claim global jurisdiction over earnings as well as charge an expatriation tax. So for a US citizen, we can easily make wealth taboo everywhere.

We had 90% marginal tax rates during the red scare. Capping incomes does not make us socialist.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
4/10/12
IlliniProgrammer:

We could mandate that all income earned over $500K must be given to a charity of the taxpayer's choice.

This is fucking retarded. Please tell me where that extra money would come from as there is no incentive to earn it.

4/10/12

^^^ Bingo. So everyone would work a little less and spend more time with their families and friends. There's incentive to work, but no incentive to kill ourselves for money. The country needs to refocus on life's biggest priorities for two or three years, and money has supplanted them. Afterwards, people who really value money more than everything else can go back to making more of it, but at least they've had an opportunity to take a break and see what's important in life.

If you happen to earn more than $500K, you can give it to a private domestic charity of your choice. I don't really see why anyone *NEEDS* more than $100K/year for a family of four to live on, anyways.

4/10/12

Bear in mind that IP is saying all this after he's made a significant amount of money, leveraged his success into one of the top grad school programs on earth, and is in a position to live comfortably for the remainder of his life. Its alot easier to advocate astronomical tax rates and such when you have gotten what you want out of it already.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
4/10/12
IlliniProgrammer:

We could mandate that all income earned over $500K must be given to a charity of the taxpayer's choice. Otherwise, it goes to the feds to pay down the debt.

I don't mind. Money is not that important. If money is the most important thing in your life, three years of seeing every extra dollar you make beyond a certain point go to charity will change that.

I guess wealth has become taboo in the US. The coolest part is that we have the world's biggest military- we just killed Bin Ladin last year- and we claim global jurisdiction over earnings as well as charge an expatriation tax. So for a US citizen, we can easily make wealth taboo everywhere.

We had 90% marginal tax rates during the red scare. Capping incomes does not make us socialist.

I wholeheartedly agree that major reforms are needed, I'm just a guy with a job and don't need to be caught up in everyone else's pathological need for attention or crusade to 'change the world', I do right by everyone and just want to live my life. As for your newfound openness to new ideas: it will pass and then you'll see things from a more balanced perspective. In the meantime, drink deep from the cup of socialism, you'll need it to get by in school....especially that one!

Get busy living

In reply to happypantsmcgee
4/10/12
happypantsmcgee:

Bear in mind that IP is saying all this after he's made a significant amount of money, leveraged his success into one of the top grad school programs on earth, and is in a position to live comfortably for the remainder of his life. Its alot easier to advocate astronomical tax rates and such when you have gotten what you want out of it already.

No, happy, it's easy to argue this when you know you can be content living on $60K/year; $100K/year with a family. I don't think I've saved up as much as you think and I wouldn't know what to do if someone gave me $500K/year and told me to spend all of it.

I wholeheartedly agree that major reforms are needed, I'm just a guy with a job and don't need to be caught up in everyone else's pathological need for attention or crusade to 'change the world', I do right by everyone and just want to live my life. As for your newfound openness to new ideas: it will pass and then you'll see things from a more balanced perspective. In the meantime, drink deep from the cup of socialism, you'll need it to get by in school....especially that one!

I don't think McCarthy was a socialist and his party was the one that supported 90% marginal tax rates on the rich during the '50s. Socialism is an economic system where the government takes care of people. Mandating that incomes beyond a certain point be given to private charity is actually extremely unsocialist.

Money is not really the priority in life, and the fewer opportunities people have to engage in conspicuous consumption, the happier we will be as a country. It's not so much taking care of the poor as it is forcing ourselves to have healthier priorities and getting folks to focus on making the world a better place rather than focusing on an unhealthy obsession. If the law can help cure a bunch of successful folks' OCD- and if the government has the genuine legal authority to do so (it does, and it has used that authority to this extent in the past), why not do it for a short time? Only the sociopaths are going to wind up truly getting hurt by it, and it's not like they're completely innocent.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
4/10/12
IlliniProgrammer:

I don't think McCarthy was a socialist and his party was the one that supported 90% marginal tax rates on the rich during the '50s. Socialism is an economic system where the government takes care of people.
...
Mandating that incomes beyond a certain point be given to private charity is actually extremely unsocialist.

Debating what socialism is and who was/wasn't a socialist will make you lots of friends in academia. True story

Get busy living

In reply to happypantsmcgee
4/10/12
happypantsmcgee:

Bear in mind that IP is saying all this after he's made a significant amount of money, leveraged his success into one of the top grad school programs on earth, and is in a position to live comfortably for the remainder of his life. Its alot easier to advocate astronomical tax rates and such when you have gotten what you want out of it already.

4/10/12

Nobody is arguing astronomical tax rates at $200K/year. I am just advocating astronomical tax rates at $500K/year. Life is a lot more fun where success motivates us to have a good work ethic but does not become the overriding factor in our lives. We would all be a lot happier if we did not need to sacrifice the stuff we shouldn't need to sacrifice to keep up with the Joneses, and if other peoples' success meant our success, too.

Capping incomes at $500K for two years wouldn't cause the economy to grind to a halt. Capping incomes at $0 for five years would.

Oh well, back to my rusty honda.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
4/10/12
IlliniProgrammer:

^^^ Bingo. So everyone would work a little less and spend more time with their families and friends. There's incentive to work, but no incentive to kill ourselves for money. The country needs to refocus on life's biggest priorities for two or three years, and money has supplanted them. Afterwards, people who really value money more than everything else can go back to making more of it, but at least they've had an opportunity to take a break and see what's important in life.

If you happen to earn more than $500K, you can give it to a private domestic charity of your choice. I don't really see why anyone *NEEDS* more than $100K/year for a family of four to live on, anyways.

Look, I understand your point but I see a couple of problems. First it isn't your right or mine or the government's or anyone else's right to decide how hard someone works and how much money they make.

Second, $100k/year is nowhere close enough to enough for a family of 4 that actually wants to live well. If you have 2 kids in private colleges you are paying that much in education expense alone. Then you have to buy cars, house, food, etc. Not to mention, you know, retirement savings.

100k after taxes, lets say 75k. Cheap mortgage of $1000/month, that's 12k a year. You now have $63,000 to spread over the insurance, food, clothing, education, etc. costs of 4 people for a year. Add in car expenses and everything else, you would be lucky to be saving anything for retirement.

This isn't 1950 where you can work on an assembly line at GM and support a family of 10 with that.

There were 9 kids in my dad's family and my grandpa put all of them through private kindergarten through college on a salary that would be about 150k in today's terms. Now my dad makes 300k, has 2 kids in private colleges and is trying to figure out how he is going to pay for a new car. Life is just more expensive now.

And don't give me any shit about expensive private colleges because that's where most of us go anyways and are the places where you are most likely to launch a good career.

4/10/12

Look, I understand your point but I see a couple of problems. First it isn't your right or mine or the government's or anyone else's right to decide how hard someone works and how much money they make.

If they're doing it to buy a Ferrari because they think we'll be impressed by it or care about it, it is our business, and they need our help. They just don't know it yet. Regardless, your parents wouldn't be affected.

Who would be affected? The kid trying to decide whether he wants to work for a hedge fund or Allstate. Capping incomes will send that kid to the insurance company where he can do something that most people would argue is more productive for the economy.

100k after taxes, lets say 75k. Cheap mortgage of $1000/month, that's 12k a year. You now have $63,000 to spread over the insurance, food, clothing, education, etc. costs of 4 people for a year. Add in car expenses and everything else, you would be lucky to be saving anything for retirement.

Wife works part time, you're saving 20% of your income. You're right, this isn't 1950.

And don't give me any shit about expensive private colleges because that's where most of us go anyways and are the places where you are most likely to launch a good career.

You can do just as well in-state. UConn, SUNY, and Rutgers are excellent schools, and the factory line model of 200 students per classroom is a lot more efficient, too.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
4/10/12

IP: "No, happy, it's easy to argue this when you know you can be content living on $60K/year; $100K/year with a family. I don't think I've saved up as much as you think and I wouldn't know what to do if someone gave me $500K/year and told me to spend all of it."

Who the hell are you, or the government, to tell me what makes ME happy? I need lots of dough to finance all this swag yo.

Btw, is quoting not working for anyone else?

In reply to swagon
4/10/12
swagon:

Who the hell are you, or the government, to tell me what makes ME happy? I need lots of dough to finance all this swag yo.

Hilarious. Dudes, don't ruin this post with a social policy rant, please. oops, too late.

swagon:

Btw, is quoting not working for anyone else?

[/quote]
no dude, it's just you.

Get busy living

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

4/10/12

When what makes you happy happens to bring sociopathy into society, the government has the authority to help make the country healthier for everyone else. Deontologically, the people who wind up getting hurt most by capping incomes are the sociopaths of the world, and this is very mild punishment for them.

In reply to UFOinsider
4/10/12
UFOinsider:
swagon:

Who the hell are you, or the government, to tell me what makes ME happy? I need lots of dough to finance all this swag yo.

Hilarious. Dudes, don't ruin this post with a social policy rant, please. oops, too late.

swagon:

Btw, is quoting not working for anyone else?

no dude, it's just you.[/quote]
Social policy rant? I asked a 15-word rhetorical question. Stop the straw man labeling.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
4/10/12
IlliniProgrammer:

When what makes you happy happens to bring sociopathy into society, the government has the authority to help make the country healthier for everyone else. Deontologically, the people who wind up getting hurt most by capping incomes are the sociopaths of the world, and this is very mild punishment for them.

Canna getaa AHMENNNN from da gongegation!

Get busy living

In reply to swagon
4/10/12
swagon:
UFOinsider:
swagon:

Who the hell are you, or the government, to tell me what makes ME happy? I need lots of dough to finance all this swag yo.

Hilarious. Dudes, don't ruin this post with a social policy rant, please. oops, too late.

swagon:

Btw, is quoting not working for anyone else?

no dude, it's just you.

Social policy rant? I asked a 15-word rhetorical question. Stop the straw man labeling.[/quote]
^ STRAW MAN?

Get busy living

4/10/12

Shit, you're right, something's wrong with the quoting...

Get busy living

4/10/12

"If they're doing it to buy a Ferrari because they think we'll be impressed by it or care about it, it is our business, and they need our help."

What about a car enthusiast like myself? Someone who wants to fufill their childhood/teenage dream? Same thing can be said about many consumer goods.

"UConn, SUNY, and Rutgers are excellent schools"

If you want to work for Burger King corporate, sure. I know you have been very successful IP, but you are the outlier, and we all know chances improve dramatically when you go to a better school.

In reply to UFOinsider
4/10/12
UFOinsider:

Shit, you're right, something's wrong with the quoting...

Yeah, so why don't you stop with the condescension?

Also, stop making false labels e.g. calling a shot rhetorical question a "social policy rant" then proceeding to make rebuttals which take the form of two word all caps yelling to make the other person's ideas sound stupid eg "STRAW MAN?"

This is akin to the left skipping out on the analytical aspect of a rebuttal, instead opting for painting their opponent as loony.

In reply to ChrisHansen
4/10/12
FusRoDah:

If you want to work for Burger King corporate, sure.

I think this mentality right here is part of the reason we need to cap incomes. I think money makes it tougher to judge people by their values rather than their success. If we were to take a break from money for a couple years, we'd be healthier as a society. We're not doing this to help poor people; we're doing this to help the rich and upper-middle-class.

In reply to swagon
4/10/12
swagon:
UFOinsider:

Shit, you're right, something's wrong with the quoting...

Yeah, so why don't you stop with the condescension?

That's how I roll, brother

Just playin'

I meant that for everyone on the thread and wasn't trying to single you out. Easy there, killer

Get busy living

In reply to UFOinsider
4/10/12
UFOinsider:
swagon:
UFOinsider:

Shit, you're right, something's wrong with the quoting...

Yeah, so why don't you stop with the condescension?

That's how I roll, brother

Just playin'

I meant that for everyone on the thread and wasn't trying to single you out. Easy there, killer

NO DUDE THIS IS THE INTERNET WHERE SHIT GETZ REAL

Seriously, it's all good man. No worries.

4/10/12

Or we could just bring back the simple and sensible financial regulation that we had up until 1999 / 2000 that worked really well all around. But, because our politicians are essentially bought and paid for, we won't get that. So, instead, people are taking to the streets.

Look, like it or not, people are angry and are only going to get angrier until actual, workable solutions are put in place. Considering we had financial regulations in place for ~80 years that worked, bring them back and it'll go a long way to fixing things.

4/10/12

So wanting to succeed brings sociopathy to society? In most cases that's not true. Buffet, Jack Welch, Gates, Zucckerberg...these people wealth/products that make our lives better.

But here's the thing. The people who aren't sociopaths don't CARE as much about money. As long as we have enough to put food on the table, take care of our needs, and enjoy *some* (not all) of our wants, we're pretty darned happy. And if we have to sacrifice some of our wants to make society as a whole better for a while, we don't feel so bad about it. The only people who get *seriously* hurt by all of this are the sociopaths- who care more about their own WANTS more than society's HEALTH. But since we're not sociopaths, we have the ability to look beyond all of that and feel good about it.

You can still succeed, and nobody is forcing you to give the money you earn to the government. You can give it to whichever cause you think makes the country a better place to live. After all, it's not like we get to take our wealth with us anyways. Capping incomes for a couple years is going to help us get some perspective and learn what's really important in life.

I think the way to renormalize GINIs isn't to talk about the needs of the poor and middle-class, but to talk about the needs of the rich and the upper middle class and how we need to spend a few years getting off the hedonic treadmill, and to have a free-market capitalist solution to the country's problems. Rather than "The Strike", let's call it "The Vacation" and take a break from striving for million dollar paydays for a few years. It's a well-needed, well-deserved break after decades and decades of striving for more.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
4/10/12
IlliniProgrammer:

When what makes you happy happens to bring sociopathy into society, the government has the authority to help make the country healthier for everyone else. Deontologically, the people who wind up getting hurt most by capping incomes are the sociopaths of the world, and this is very mild punishment for them.

me wanting to join a startup brings sociopathy to society? Interesting.

Now, to address the broader implications of your statement:

So wanting to succeed brings sociopathy to society? In most cases that's not true. Buffet, Jack Welch, Gates, Zberg...these created people wealth/products that make our lives better.

As for some bankers, many are sociopaths. But they're not making society sociopathic. Their sociopathy is not bleeding into the rest of society turning people into Patrick Batemans. If anything, the opposite is true - the libertarian and OWS movements have sprung up in opposition to bankers and corporatism, and those movements have actually had serious influence, as opposed to bankers who have less and less influence, and are now the scorn of society.

Anyways, who is the goverment to tell people they should not be sociopaths? If I want to be psycho, let me be psycho. Now, if I go off on a murder spree like Patrick Bateman, or break the law somehow, arrest me...but you can't just make it illegal to be an asshole, which is essentially what sociopaths are, and arrest/fine/punish me for social behavior.

Now, bankers DO cause destruction outside of themselves, but it's not a social issue, it's financial/economic one. Obviously they played a role in fueling the housing bubble. But what facilitates, and even enhances, banks' ability to cause financial destruction? The federal reserve, the goverment's collusion with the banking system, Congress, Barney Frank, GSEs....and you should know this as a libertarian-leaning person (though these recent posts make me question your libertarianism). Banks could never cause such destruction if capital markets were truly free.

4/10/12
4/10/12

It's inevitable. GINIs have swung too high and are going to swing back. The problem was that in the '30s, it was all about class warfare. I just want it to be more constructive this time. If it's about a "vacation for the rich" and the upper-middle-class reevaluating its priorities in life, the renormalization of opportunities becomes an opportunity for personal development rather than an economic threat.

4/10/12

How would this hurt sociopaths? What is the proportion of sociopaths in finance relative to the rest of the country? How do you measure the societal harm inflicted by sociopaths? How do you measure the societal good done by sociopaths? How much societal good has been done by regular people trying to make a lot of money? Where do you draw the line between a sociopath and the average person who just likes money?

You seem to be simplifying this down to "sociopaths like money. sociopaths fuck people over in their quest to get rich. society suffers". I'm saying these are tenuous assertions. If you want to advocate something as radical as a massive intervention into the current system you'd better have some goddamn convincing evidence that what you're doing is going to accomplish something positive. I have SERIOUS doubts as to the utility of your suggestion, even ignoring the obvious violations of individual property rights that it entails.

4/10/12

Agree with above: I came to finance because I never wanted to be poor again. I've been laid off, had my job outsourced, company closed, etc... and my way of thinking is that if I develop a specialty I'd always have an income. If I get rich...hey, cool...but I just want to live well. Even my MD tells me to keep life in perspective and not to get too caught up in making money, as it cost them their marriage and they wouldn't go back and do it again like that.

For most people here, this really is just a job. Some people are nuts, others just want to make a good living, and it's totally possible to do it honorably no matter WHAT the idiots on the fringes may say. OWS doesn't get that because they're nuts.

Get busy living

In reply to UFOinsider
4/10/12
UFOinsider:

Agree with above: I came to finance because I never wanted to be poor again. I've been laid off, had my job outsourced, company closed, etc... and my way of thinking is that if I develop a specialty I'd always have an income. If I get rich...hey, cool...but I just want to live well. Even my MD tells me to keep life in perspective and not to get too caught up in making money, as it cost them their marriage and they wouldn't go back and do it again like that.

For most people here, this really is just a job. Some people are nuts, others just want to make a good living, and it's totally possible to do it honorably no matter WHAT the idiots on the fringes may say. OWS doesn't get that because they're nuts.

bro u gotta think bigger if u wanna get presteej

4/10/12

How would this hurt sociopaths? What is the proportion of sociopaths in finance relative to the rest of the country? How do you measure the societal harm inflicted by sociopaths? How do you measure the societal good done by sociopaths? How much societal good has been done by regular people trying to make a lot of money? Where do you draw the line between a sociopath and the average person who just likes money?

Sociopaths don't feel good when they give money away. The rest of us derive some utility from that. Maybe it doesn't feel as much as spending on ourselves, but generally, we feel good when we give our surplus towards making the rest of the country better. It sure as heck feels a lot better to write a check for $500K to the Salvation Army than to give $500K to the federal government.

You seem to be simplifying this down to "sociopaths like money. sociopaths fuck people over in their quest to get rich. society suffers". I'm saying these are tenuous assertions. If you want to advocate something as radical as a massive intervention into the current system you'd better have some goddamn convincing evidence that what you're doing is going to accomplish something positive.

The only certain assertion is that which goes up, and cannot keep going up forever, must one day go down. GINIs have to come down by hook or by crook, and we can make the world a better place and do something constructive with the decline in GINIs by requiring people give to charity rather than taxing them at 90%.

It's an inevitable part of the 70-year economic cycle. The rich fought it in the 1930s and became "victims of class warfare" rather than people who rediscovered what really makes them happy and satisfied. Beyond a certain point, material possessions don't make people happy.

4/10/12

Pay-caps...Central Planning in the US would lead to a huge brain drain, you would have people either hiding money of unprecedented value and methods, or the people making >$500k a year are going to take themselves and their companies to other countries. Once they do that they are going to bring talented people with them who want to some day make 500k a year. Plus politicians don't like to back-peddle on these types of things, and most "temporary" laws become long term and permanent ones, especially ones that single out individual groups to appease a larger spectrum of people who are indifferent to those people.

If people want to devote their lives to making money I don't see why they can't/shouldn't because they may be antisocial or "sociopaths". I don't like the Kardashians, or Jersey Shore, but I'm not going to slam them in prison because they are distorting the minds of impressionable youth. It's not very fair to pick and choose special interests that don't serve your ideals and tell them that they need to act in a way that fits with your beliefs.

I'm not saying that you have to be, like, or work for people who make that kind of money, who have those kinds of ideals, but you have to respect them and their rights to do that. If what you are talking about is fraud then propose better methods of pursuing and prosecuting it. If you think there is too much risk inside the banks, break them down into smaller pieces. But I don't think that someone who devoted their life to these goals should have to give it all up for people who dislike them and their ideals.

4/10/12

So wait, only people in finance are sociopaths? For some reason I feel like this is not dependent on income. Some of the largest frauds committed were people running companies or wealth managers, not bankers.

I don't think anyone has a right to limit someones earnings or income based on personal opinion. Do that and people will simply go elsewhere to work. The country will be worse off, not better.

4/10/12

Its also a joke, assuming you could ever get a nominal limit on income through congress, that the number should be the same regardless of location. Family of 4 in NYC or San Fran on 500k != single person in an apartment in Charlotte.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

4/10/12

Yeah, also you can kiss NYC's economy down the drain.

Bring back Glass Steagal, stop bailing out banks, fix the tax structure and reduce corporate taxes. There are plenty of companies outsourcing labor and operations that are only marginally profitable and would happily bring jobs back if things were just a little cheaper. Wages and costs are rising in China and all it would take is fixing the corp tax structure to bring some of them home.

Besides, corporations don't pay taxes, they just college them for the government.

4/10/12

IP you need me to get you a padded cell bro?

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

In reply to TNA
4/10/12
TNA:

Yeah, also you can kiss NYC's economy down the drain.

Bring back Glass Steagal, stop bailing out banks, fix the tax structure and reduce corporate taxes. There are plenty of companies outsourcing labor and operations that are only marginally profitable and would happily bring jobs back if things were just a little cheaper. Wages and costs are rising in China and all it would take is fixing the corp tax structure to bring some of them home.

Besides, corporations don't pay taxes, they just college them for the government.

This.

In reply to TheKing
4/10/12
TheKing:

Or we could just bring back the simple and sensible financial regulation that we had up until 1999 / 2000 that worked really well all around. But, because our politicians are essentially bought and paid for, we won't get that. So, instead, people are taking to the streets.

Look, like it or not, people are angry and are only going to get angrier until actual, workable solutions are put in place. Considering we had financial regulations in place for ~80 years that worked, bring them back and it'll go a long way to fixing things.

You're right, they will get angrier, and eventually something will need to be done, but the wrong things will be done. Government will only get bigger, and we will go more and more into debt. Lowering corp. taxes would allow more production in America, and more employment would occur.

Although I'm pretty sure some people at OWS are content with collecting their welfare checks, and just going to protest for the hell of it.

In reply to tiger90
4/11/12
tiger90:

Pay-caps...Central Planning in the US would lead to a huge brain drain, you would have people either hiding money of unprecedented value and methods, or the people making >$500k a year are going to take themselves and their companies to other countries. Once they do that they are going to bring talented people with them who want to some day make 500k a year. Plus politicians don't like to back-peddle on these types of things, and most "temporary" laws become long term and permanent ones, especially ones that single out individual groups to appease a larger spectrum of people who are indifferent to those people.

See, that's the beauty of it. The US claims global jurisdiction over incomes on all citizens, wherever they are, from whatever source they derive it. You can expatriate if you want, but we still have the authority to tax you, and it's not exactly like the US is a completely irrelevant country economically, diplomatically, militarily, and agriculturally.

Or, it's just two years where you can focus on something besides money. It's such a short time, you'll probably forget all about it by the time everything is over. Honestly, of all the crazy ideas, to think people would seriously consider expatriating and running from the law over two short years of charitable giving. No, I'm pretty sure everyone will stay.

If people want to devote their lives to making money I don't see why they can't/shouldn't because they may be antisocial or "sociopaths". I don't like the Kardashians, or Jersey Shore, but I'm not going to slam them in prison because they are distorting the minds of impressionable youth. It's not very fair to pick and choose special interests that don't serve your ideals and tell them that they need to act in a way that fits with your beliefs.

There's nothing wrong with making money, but it's good for everyone to spend a year or two remembering what the important things in life are.

I'm not saying that you have to be, like, or work for people who make that kind of money, who have those kinds of ideals, but you have to respect them and their rights to do that. If what you are talking about is fraud then propose better methods of pursuing and prosecuting it. If you think there is too much risk inside the banks, break them down into smaller pieces. But I don't think that someone who devoted their life to these goals should have to give it all up for people who dislike them and their ideals.

Of course. And you have to respect the government's authority to tax you.

I don't think anyone's saying capitalism doesn't work. I just think a majority of the country- and a majority of the folks earning six figures- not seven- would be a lot happier if the country as a whole took a two year vacation from ambition.

In reply to TNA
4/11/12
TNA:

I don't think anyone has a right to limit someones earnings or income based on personal opinion. Do that and people will simply go elsewhere to work. The country will be worse off, not better.

I'm not necessarily saying we should do it. But I have run the thought experiment here- and I've certainly taken expatriation into account- and I'm saying that we *could* do it for a couple years *if the country wanted to*. Nobody is going to expatriate over two or three years- especially if it's not the government taking their money but a private charity of their choice- and even if they tried to, between our diplomatic strength and our control of the world's food supply, they wouldn't make it very far.

The fact is that the 99% have us cornered if they want. And eventually the government will be forcing GINIs back down. Wouldn't it be better to do it on our terms? We can take a vacation from economic ambition and set our sights on the things that really matter in life. But if we don't do it at some point, it will be forced on us. And it's not like we'll be running from Zimbabwe or Cuba.

In order to expatriate without the feds' blessing, a tax haven has to take you. Only problem is that unless that tax haven is higher-tax Russia, Australia, or Argentina, that tax haven probably imports food from the US, since we literally produce half the world's food exports. So unless you are expatriating into a starving country where the rule of law does not necessarily exist and your assets may be forfeited, we can still tax you. No country would be that foolish to take lots of disgruntled taxpayers, and nobody is going to try to leave their friends and family over two years worth of taxes.

It's just so beautiful. The true sociopaths are left obsessing about how they're going to leave- dealing with the fact that they can't- and eventually taking themselves out of the gene pool- and the rest of us are focusing on what really matters in life.

These protests are going to keep getting bigger until GINIs normalize. We have civil unrest when GINIs get too high; we have economic malaise when they get too low. Rather than facing a remake of the French Revolution or the class warfare of the '30s, let's let go of our economic obsession on better, more constructive terms. After all, it's only money.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
4/11/12
IlliniProgrammer:
TNA:

I don't think anyone has a right to limit someones earnings or income based on personal opinion. Do that and people will simply go elsewhere to work. The country will be worse off, not better.

This is the wonderful thing, ANT. We control the world's food supply. The constitution already gives us a global claim on our citizens' incomes as well as the authority to charge up to ten years of income taxes after expatriation. So you can leave if you want, but you're still paying the taxes. Unless of course you decide to give the money to charity, which really isn't so horrible.

But seriously, who would be silly enough leave the country over two short years of charitable giving? Is it really the end of the world for us to spend more time and energy focusing on our families and friends rather than revenue generation?

I'm not necessarily saying we should do it. But I have run the thought experiment here- and I've certainly taken expatriation into account- and I'm saying that we *could* do it for a couple years *if the country wanted to*. Nobody is going to expatriate over two or three years- especially if it's not the government taking their money but a private charity of their choice- and even if they tried to, between our diplomatic strength and our control of the world's food supply, they wouldn't make it very far.

The fact is that the 99% have us cornered if they want. And eventually the government will be forcing GINIs back down. Wouldn't it be better to do it on our terms? We can take a vacation from economic ambition and set our sights on the things that really matter in life. But if we don't do it at some point, it will be forced on us. And it's not like we'll be running from Zimbabwe or Cuba.

That's why I'mma ca$h out into gold, fake my own death, and move to the Caribbean, ballin!

4/11/12

That's why I'mma ca$h out into gold, fake my own death, and move to the Caribbean, ballin!

That's what Bin Laden thought, too.

Just kidding. Sort of. :evilgrin:

But seriously, I've heard the expatriation argument used like the US is the size of Leichtenstein or something rather than the country that accounts for 50% of the world's military aid and 50% of the world's grain exports. It's really not that simple, and at the end of the day, I don't think too many people will shove their thumb in the federal government's eye if the country as a whole chooses to do this. Seriously folks, it's only money. It's not like we're talking about the important things in life.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
4/11/12
IlliniProgrammer:

That's why I'mma ca$h out into gold, fake my own death, and move to the Caribbean, ballin!

That's what Bin Laden thought, too.

Just kidding. Sort of. :evilgrin:

But seriously, I've heard the expatriation argument used like the US is the size of Leichtenstein or something rather than the country that accounts for 50% of the world's military aid and 50% of the world's grain exports. It's really not that simple, and at the end of the day, I don't think too many people will shove their thumb in the federal government's eye if the country as a whole chooses to do this. Seriously folks, it's only money. It's not like we're talking about the important things in life.

There are a lot of business owners who would stick their finger in the governments eye by firing their employees and waiting it out. You can't cap pay. Athleetes will riot and people will join them when they can't watch football baseball or basketball. You haven't even begun to assess the social consequences of this. You cap pay in this way you will destroy the ambition of those who run the economy. I don't give a fuck about someone who makes 40k a year I have the resources to fire them all and wait it out just to prove a point. It's not going to be me who suffers.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

4/11/12

There are a lot of business owners who would stick their finger in the governments eye by firing their employees and waiting it out. You can't cap pay. Athleetes will riot and people will join them when they can't watch football baseball or basketball. You haven't even begun to assess the social consequences of this. You cap pay in this way you will destroy the ambition of those who run the economy. I don't give a fuck about someone who makes 40k a year I have the resources to fire them all and wait it out just to prove a point. It's not going to be me who suffers.

Most of the economy is controlled by C-corps anyways- moreso than we had in the 1930s when we last tried something like this, and a corporation's job is to generate profits. Shareholders are going to continue to demand that. If the CEO quits, someone else who's fairly competent and willing to make $500K/year will take over.

The beauty is that if the rich quit, other people will step up to the plate to take over.

Sure you have the resources to fire everyone. Meanwhile, you've got to pay property taxes, maintain everything, and your competitors will gain a lot of market share. So someone who really hates giving back to their favorite charities will come out of the two years at a significant disadvantage to the competition. Of course, it's only a mere two years; why would anyone do that out of spite- and not spite for the federal government, but spite for their favorite charities? Trust me, we're not that special, and someone else will step up to the plate to take over.

Most likely, the rich and the middle-class will have an opportunity to reprioritize and figure out what really matters in life. Money is important, but spending time with family and friends are more important than that. I get the sense that over the past 30 years, the country has lost a lot of perspective on that.

And I think some of your mentality is the whole point. The next two years are an opportunity for you to take a vacation or at least focus a whole lot less on economic ambition and focus more on ambition in your friendships and your personal goals. Society will continue trudging along; this is just a chance to work less. So if you're quitting or working less out of self-interest, I'm happy for you. If you're quitting as a protest, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

4/11/12

Soooo, a militarily controlled, centrally run system? My man, welcome to the world of communism. Seriously, I agree with TheKing's assessment, as that system worked quite well until the rich decided to pay off the politicians to dismantle it...and then the economy promtly hit the shitter.

Arguing these viewpoints is futile, and are best saved for academia. Speaking of "taking a two year break from ambition", perhaps you're projecting your current mindset onto larger world affairs? This is plainly obvious to me because I did the same thing at your age.

Get busy living

In reply to UFOinsider
4/11/12
UFOinsider:

Soooo, a militarily controlled, centrally run system? My man, welcome to the world of communism. Seriously, I agree with TheKing's assessment, as that system worked quite well until the rich decided to pay off the politicians to dismantle it...and then the economy promtly hit the shitter.

It's hardly centrally run. The government keeps a very small budget and lets people choose which charities to give to- effectively allowing PEOPLE to set domestic policy.

Of course it's ridiculous to talk about a military state. It's just as ridiculous to claim people are going to expatriate because they hate giving money to their favorite charities. My point is simply that we do claim global jurisdiction over the incomes of citizens and expatriates for ten years, and for those who want to flout tax law, it's not like the US is Estonia or Tuvalu.

Arguing these viewpoints is futile, and are best saved for academia. Speaking of "taking a two year break from ambition", perhaps you're projecting your current mindset onto larger world affairs? This is plainly obvious to me because I did the same thing at your age.

It's hardly futile UFO. GINIs have gotten to the point where they're creating civil unrest, and some contraction is inevitable. We can either have FDR Jr. show up, Lenin Jr. show up, or we can do it on our own terms.

4/11/12

LOL IP, for all this talk of sociopathy, you yourself seem like the biggest sociopath of us all, in that you are forcing your rusty-honda-driving persona down all of our throats... regardless of whether we want your "help" or not. Surely your PBR drinking self can appreciate the irony?

Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over to your property and break your windows.

4/11/12

LOL IP, for all this talk of sociopathy, you yourself seem like the biggest sociopath of us all, in that you are forcing your rusty-honda-driving persona down all of our throats... regardless of whether we want your "help" or not. Surely your PBR drinking self can appreciate the irony?

Maybe. But the country has developed an unhealthy obsession with money that I don't think we had 30 years ago. There's a time and a season for everything, including a season for the rich getting less rich.

4/11/12

I still cannot get over the fact that the guy lamenting the rise of rich and lust for money is a wall street veteran that could have gone into any number of fields with his very impressive academic credentials yet chose to work for a major player in international finance. All of this railing against the money culture is great but you're going to get a Masters in Finance at an Ivy. Hardly seems like you're planning to make a major shift in your career trajectory.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

4/11/12

I still cannot get over the fact that the guy lamenting the rise of rich and lust for money is a wall street veteran that could have gone into any number of fields with his very impressive academic credentials yet chose to work for a major player in international finance. All of this railing against the money culture is great but you're going to get a Masters in Finance at an Ivy. Hardly seems like you're planning to make a major shift in your career trajectory.

I'm not lamenting the rise of rich people. I'm simply looking at history. And history shows that the current income inequality in the country is unsustainable and we're seeing some of the first signs of civil unrest from OWS. I also think that, unlike the situation 30 years ago when we needed deregulation and we needed income stratification, there's a lot of competition to become richer than other people that's DRIVING sociopathy. People make the assumption that other people are cheating and aren't playing fair, so they follow the same rules. If we were to have the country take a short two year break from all of this, we could hit the reset button on much of that.

It's just part of the natural economic and political cycle. Heck, the reason the stock market and financial sector did so well from the '50s through the '90s was that we had a lot of idiots with money. If only smart rich people have money, it's a lot harder to make money from investing.

As for why I work for a major financial player? It's a fun game. It's not about the money. If it were about the money, I would have taken the offer from Facebook and probably be making eight figures on the IPO.

4/11/12

Fair point, thanks for addressing it.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

4/11/12

OK, I walked by the NYSE on my way to work and there were three people in sleeping bags and two police cars. I don't think we have a Zucotti Park situation on Wall Street yet. If it grows, they'll set up those metal barricades that make it pain to walk around down here- just like they did last time.

And, yes, stop bailing out/subsidizing the banks. Give the market control of interest rates and we'll change the world.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
4/11/12
IlliniProgrammer:

The government keeps a very small budget and lets people choose which charities to give to- effectively allowing PEOPLE to set domestic policy.

You and a lot of libertarians don't seem to understand that in the absense of government, People don't set up domestic policy....local mafia, gangs, religious nuts, corporate overlords, and warlords will. I know this because I've seen this firsthand. Get out of the office/academia for a bit and spend some time in the real world.

Get busy living

4/11/12

You and a lot of libertarians don't seem to understand that in the absense of government, People don't set up domestic policy....local mafia, gangs, religious nuts, corporate overlords, and warlords will. I know this because I've seen this firsthand. Get out of the office/academia for a bit and spend some time in the real world.

LOL, UFO, I currently work in the real world, and that's what's driving my views on this. I see a lot of people who should be thrilled about life but are instead extremely unsastisfied, unfulfilled, and unhappy. The money chase has made them miserable. Likewise, the middle class believes that the money chase by the RICH has made them miserable too. The one constant is that everyone seems to be less happy because the top 10% of the country is becoming too obsessed with money. So I think there's not just a utilitarian but a deontological justification for capping incomes for a short time and trying to shake off the obsession a little. Especially since there was a 25-year precedent for it between the '30s and the '50s.

Oh, we absolutely need to fund the police and the military. My point is would you rather have government bureaucrats the NEA be funding museums, arts and culture, or would you rather let the folks who would otherwise be paying the taxes decide which museums to support? Maybe we would get fewer "artists" getting grants for putting up a black canvas and calling it art.

Would you rather have the government mail out welfare checks for people who are on drugs, or would you rather have rich people funding the Salvation Army's rehabilitation programs?

Would you rather have long drawn out political arguments about global warming and companies like Solyndra, or would you rather have the rich people who believe it's real try to come up with a cheaper way of making energy than what we can get from fossil fuels?

Once we have the courts, the police, and the army, government starts getting really big and has trouble making the world a better place. But if we ask PEOPLE to step up to the plate and make the world a better place, they still have the ability to manage all of that.

4/11/12

When has the US not had income equality? The Constitution was written by the people who were landowners and issued the first loans to the government before securing foreign aid primarily from France. And they specifically protected themselves by allowing Congress the power to levy taxes (to which they all ran). Historically speaking, the US probably has the lowest levels of corruption in history considering elections were run by for profit syndicates with no accountability until the 1930s. And what's to stop companies from issuing non-cash benefits in lieu of pay. Like purchasing homes, equity, other things. If you impede that then you really will halt economic growth and jobs in a very direct manner. Besides, if you look at how the super-rich have historically guarded their fortunes from estate taxes - through charitable organizations - you will find that the only way you would really be able to do what you propose is to go to a fully centralized government.

Rockefeller - Peak wealth of $1.3B in the 1920s, 3 Charitable trusts with a value of $1.8B today. His progeny has either directly worked in the charities pulling salaries, or other charities such as the Ford and Hilton ones where they pull salaries, through the private asset management companies that only deal with their firms, which don't disclose their compensation, or went into their own profitable paths which derived from funding brought down from family wealth.

If you study NYC in the late 19th century, you'd see just how crooked politicians were and how large the wealth gaps truly were. Look at people like Jay Gould and Vanderbilt who paid judges to rule in their favor against the wishes of shareholders. Classic case of this was the Erie Railroad company that Jay Gould used as his own personal bank account for investing by secretly issuing convertable warrants without shareholder knowledge and taking the cash raised for his operations.

There is no coincidence that the wealthiest people in history (Rockefeller and Carnegie) were successful during the greatest economic growth in world history, during a period when the US did not have Federal guidelines for businesses other than free trade across states. And if you compared the average lifestyle of middle America (or even impoverished Americans) from the 1850s to 1910s, there is no comparison about the growth in social benefit even despite the loss of the labor capital with slavery. JP Morgan had to take on a loan from First National City Bank (Bank operated from Standard Oil cash flow) in order to loan the US Treasury gold to stay solvent, which was caused by usage of the Gold Standard, or a centrally planned valuation of US currency that was never sustainable.

Historically, governments are terrible at setting prices for anything, whether it is labor, commodities, products, etc. What has always come about when this has been enacted is larger wealth disparities (North Korea, China, Soviet Union, Cuba) caused by "illegal"/backroom deals between people of power. I just don't see a rational and logical way you could do this that would a) end any kind of large sized perk, b) not create a new level of cronyism or c) not destroy value creation processes within a nation.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
4/11/12
IlliniProgrammer:

LOL IP, for all this talk of sociopathy, you yourself seem like the biggest sociopath of us all, in that you are forcing your rusty-honda-driving persona down all of our throats... regardless of whether we want your "help" or not. Surely your PBR drinking self can appreciate the irony?

Maybe. But the country has developed an unhealthy obsession with money that I don't think we had 30 years ago. There's a time and a season for everything, including a season for the rich getting less rich.

While I agree that society has regressed into a materialistic coma as of late, I don't think FORCING them to understand that Family>Money is the solution here. Remember: The best lessons, we learn by ourselves.

You know, for a self-proclaimed libertarian, you sound an awful lot like Santorum (may God have mercy on his soul).

Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over to your property and break your windows.

4/11/12

Historically, governments are terrible at setting prices for anything, whether it is labor, commodities, products, etc. What has always come about when this has been enacted is larger wealth disparities (North Korea, China, Soviet Union, Cuba) caused by "illegal"/backroom deals between people of power. I just don't see a rational and logical way you could do this that would a) end any kind of large sized perk, b) not create a new level of cronyism or c) not destroy value creation processes within a nation.

Eventually, sure. But this is a short two-year deal and you can't really make long-term financial plans around it. It's simply a short period of time where everyone has the opportunity to take a step back, realize where money REALLY falls on the list of life's priorities, and figures out what really belongs in its place at the top. The net impact is that a bunch of charities get their endowments replenished and the rich and upper middle class remember what makes really makes them happy.

It won't fix the fact that too much obsession with wealth drives sociopathy in the country. (And yes, too much socialism shuts the economy down.) But it will set the clock back about 15-20 years and make people remember what's really important in life. Afterwards, we can go back to being a laissez-faire capitalist country, hopefully one where the poor and middle-class realize that rich people are a BLESSING- not a CURSE- and where the rich and upper middle class realize that some things are more important than money.

You know, for a self-proclaimed libertarian, you sound an awful lot like Santorum (may God have mercy on his soul).

I'm a puritan/malthusian kind of libertarian. A little bit of suffering is good for the soul. And I'm worried we're either going to turn out like WWI Russia or the Roman Republic if we're not careful.

4/11/12

OWS people were enjoying the NYC weather these past few weeks.

Now that it's getting cold again, back to camping out with no real purpose/goal.

In reply to IlliniProgrammer
4/11/12
IlliniProgrammer:

I see a lot of people who should be thrilled about life but are instead extremely unsastisfied, unfulfilled, and unhappy. The money chase has made them miserable.

Again, I think you're projecting your own state of mind onto the larger society. Honestly, take a government 101 course and get a fundamental overview of how the U.S. system works. You'll likely drop the labels you apply to yourself when you realize how off the mark ALL of the looney tunes thought systems are. I call myself a totalitarian just to get a rise out of the folks on this site, but really, just free your mind of all that, you're smart enough. I don't disagree with your assessment that there are problems...serious ones...in the tax structure, etc of America at the moment. I'm merely pointing out that jumping ship from finance to startup, while sounding exciting, will put you in the same state of mind in +/-5 years, so start looking at the big picture of your life instead of living in a world of ideology.

If you're not interested in business, then don't do it, there are plenty of ways to make a living...and plenty of ways to make a fortune. I question it myself...do I REALLY want to be here in 20 years? I don't know. Personally, I wanted to be a professor. But deriding people who earn > $40k, 200K, OR WHATEVER per year is futile, and hiding away in a world of abstractions will only come back to bite you. I'd PM this but (1) you've never responded to my messages and (2) a LOT of people on this site do the same thing and may benefit from some introspection.

Again, I know this because I used to do this.

Get busy living

4/11/12

I have never seen an instance of government taking power temporarily, then relinquishing it without some sort of civil unrest. Martial law in cities does not count, since there is larger oversight. Once you have the "temporary" law put into place, every 2 years Congress is going to vote to extend it. Why might you ask? Well, Congress has elections every 2 years, and who wants to look like they favor those rich scummy people that steal from the poor to line their pockets with the hopes and dreams of the middle class. It would be very quickly perceived by the liberal media to look like tax breaks on the rich, and once cutbacks on the now issued entitlement programs begin, they are stealing education from the youth, food from the poor, and enacting social stratification on the middle class.

What companies would probably do is utilize RSUs or other forms of deferred compensation, or perks if it was short term. Brain drain definitely occurring when Congress decides to keep renewing the tax.

4/11/12

Again, I think you're projecting your own state of mind onto the larger society. Honestly, take a government 101 course and get an fundamental overview of how the U.S. system works. I don't disagree with your assessment that there are problems...serious ones...in the tax structure, etc of America at the moment. I'm merely pointing out that jumping ship from finance to startup, while sounding exciting, will put you in the same state of mind in +/-5 years, so start looking at the big picture of your life instead of living in a world of ideology.

No UFO, I'm not. Just take a look at all of the posts from industry guys on the forums if you don't believe me. I see lots of angry and depressed people making posts. Studies show that people who work in investment banking are 4-5 times as likely to have anxiety or depression-related health issues as people who work for other fortune 500 companies. Studies show we're also 5-10x more at risk for sociopathy with as many as 1 in 10 people in sales and trading qualifying as clinical socipaths. The money chase is literally killing us.

I'll admit that my views are colored a lot by the financial sector. Maybe folks running startups and maybe lawyers and doctors are happier.

If you're not interested in business, then don't do it, there are plenty of ways to make a living...and plenty of ways to make a fortune. I question it myself...do I REALLY want to be here in 20 years? I don't know. Personally, I wanted to be a professor. But deriding people who earn > $40k, 200K, OR WHATEVER per year is futile, and hiding away in a world of abstractions will only come back to bite you. I'd PM this but (1) you've never responded to my messages and (2) a LOT of people on this site do the same thing and may benefit from some introspection.

I don't mind UFO. My passion is for finance and it's what I'm good at. I enjoy working in industry. But I don't need $1 million/year to be happy, and if it's making folks around me unhappy, I'm happy to give up some of my income for a couple years. It's not like a rusty honda costs a lot to maintain. I'd like to think most industry professionals think the same way. We're in this industry because we enjoy doing it, not for the money. And I think stepping away from the most unhappy parts of our ambition for a little bit actually makes the game more fun.

Monopoly is a much more fun, interesting, and thought-provoking game to play at the beginning than it is at the end. This is our opportunity to wind the game back about 10-15 turns around the board.

I have never seen an instance of government taking power temporarily, then relinquishing it without some sort of civil unrest.

That's the beauty of this. The government ISN'T taking power. We are making our own decisions about where the money we earned goes. We just have to give it away, and it's only for two years.

What companies would probably do is utilize RSUs or other forms of deferred compensation, or perks if it was short term. Brain drain definitely occurring when Congress decides to keep renewing the tax.

We can regulate that part too- when the RSUs vest, we can require those to be given to charity. Obviously there will be ways of optimizing everything if you get the right tax lawyer, but you still can't get around the general fact that beyond a certain point, all of your money is going to charity for those two years.

But seriously, in 100 years, it really won't matter how much money you made, anyways. It's not like you get to take it with you.

4/11/12

Well, if I am the master of my own charity with no government oversight, I'll start the "Tiger's 10% Annualized Return Foundation". It will save up a lot of money, but I will receive a fat bonus in 2 years thanks to my stewardship.

4/11/12

"But seriously, in 100 years, it really won't matter how much money you made, anyways. It's not like you get to take it with you."

Well, that depends on where you're going ;). Although I do not foresee a problem myself currently at $500k, I would most certainly wish to leave something for my children, even if they are shitless layabouts. Blood is thicker than water, I would much rather help out family than strangers.

But anyways, with the amount of ifs involved with this theory it doesn't even make sense anymore as this would have to be a completely different reality for all of the things to fall perfectly into place that are needed. As well fundamentals of government, economics and human psych/sociology would have to be different. The fact that are there so many different moving targets to hit is why these types of theories have never worked before.

In reply to tiger90
4/11/12
tiger90:

Well, if I am the master of my own charity with no government oversight, I'll start the "Tiger's 10% Annualized Return Foundation". It will save up a lot of money, but I will receive a fat bonus in 2 years thanks to my stewardship.

Apparently, you've never dealt with the IRS. Trust me, you don't want to get on their list.

But anyways, with the amount of ifs involved with this theory it doesn't even make sense anymore as this would have to be a completely different reality for all of the things to fall perfectly into place that are needed. As well fundamentals of government, economics and human psych/sociology would have to be different. The fact that are there so many different moving targets to hit is why these types of theories have never worked before.

Those theories saved the constitution in the early '30s. We could have wound up like Russia; thank God we had a democratically elected government; thank God the rich were willing to be a little open-minded back then. I think it's very possible we could be facing 90% marginal tax rates in five to ten years. I would much rather be required to give 90% of my income to charity. At least then I know it won't be wasted and at least then people would give me more credit for paying taxes. The myth that rich people make money at the expense of the middle-class tends to get dispelled a whole lot faster if the wealthy are doing the giving rather than the government.

What I do know is that I'm glad we stayed a democracy and 90% tax rates sure beat a red army death squad.

The Russian nobility and aristocracy hit the brick wall during WWI. Under FDR, and because we were a democratic country, we got a bit smarter and threw up a few pads- hitting the wall hurt badly, but it didn't kill us. This time, let's see if we can deploy an airbag. Instead of getting taxed at 90%, let's see if we can *give* at 90% and cut fifty years of the politics of class warfare down to just a couple. In order for income inequality to be sustainable, people have to see how rich peoples' success translates to their success.

4/11/12

OWS New Haven never left...

They tried to kick them out yesterday with bulldozers, etc, but apparently they will get to stay until the Mayor files some official document.

Occupier guy they showed on the news : "We won! The people won!..........erm until they get that court order" lol

I always check the giant calendar they've got in the middle of the camp... funny that there has NEVER been anything written on it!

edit: also, be sure to get that photo, crouching in front of the bulldozers, with your little face mask on!

"That dude is so haole, he don't even have any breath left."

4/11/12

Yes but that was also under the Gold Standard as well as the fact the government had balanced budget laws that only gave exception to wartime. Although I have read Steinbeck, I'm hard pressed to believe how imposing the fear of Communism in the US was back then. None of my grandparents have ever said anything about the possible overthrow of the US Government during the 1930s. Upton Sinclair wrote some pretty nasty things about capitalism in The Jungle and Oil! It is and has been my belief that people were probably more worried about finding work and feeding their children, and less worried about how much money in taxes were being garnered by the 1%.

Besides, revolutions take decades in the making to occur. The average American was not bad off during the 20s. Although there were strikes, threats, and whatever J. Edgar Hoover produced to scare the shit out of the President, I still don't believe that an overthrow of a democratically elected government was going to occur. Besides, people loved FDR more because of the perception he gave people of watching over them, not because he actually helped them out. "Yes we can!"

4/11/12

Yes but that was also under the Gold Standard as well as the fact the government had balanced budget laws that only gave exception to wartime. Although I have read Steinbeck, I'm hard pressed to believe how imposing the fear of Communism in the US was back then. None of my grandparents have ever said anything about the possible overthrow of the US Government during the 1930s. Upton Sinclair wrote some pretty nasty things about capitalism in The Jungle and Oil! It is and has been my belief that people were probably more worried about finding work and feeding their children, and less worried about how much money in taxes were being garnered by the 1%.

Don't forget Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here". The book literally revolved around a very thinly veiled Huey Long becoming a dictator. The man essentially had carte blanche to pass laws in Louisiana and had the entire state supreme court replaced when they ruled against him. He was also extremely popular in the US and was about to mount a run against FDR when the son in law of a disgruntled former judge shot him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long

It is and has been my belief that people were probably more worried about finding work and feeding their children, and less worried about how much money in taxes were being garnered by the 1%.

There was also a strong perception of corruption in the 1920s and 1930s. It was even worse in Soviet Russia and during the French revolution. Wealth disparity in and of itself doesn't drive revolutions, but the perception of ill-gotten wealth does.

Take away the incentive to steal, take away the stealing. Mandating charitable giving for two years takes away a lot of the nefarious wealth collector perception and replaces some of that with a friendly rich uncle vibe for a decade or so. If you get rich by working hard, playing by the rules, and it becomes the height of nobility to give money away, we get a much healthier culture than the one of conspicuous consumption that we have now.

4/11/12

I was just looking at the marginal tax rates historically, and it appears that Hoover (or at least Congress during his session) was the one who raised taxes in 1932 from 25% to 63%. It bounced around a lot, both rates and the top tier, some years it was $1M, others $90M of income, it was probably an attempt for Congress to directly control wages and savings. The peak of it the taxation was during WW2 when it spiked up to 94%. But the interesting thing I noticed was that taxation as a % of GDP was quite low throughout the 30s until the significant increase to 94% (Reaching 20% of GDP). Since then the tax-rate to GDP has been between 15-20%, most likely because of various other forms of taxation that have popped up that aren't attributed to income directly.

I was reading articles not specifically quotable I believe that stated that there were many tax loopholes that were utilized during those times so that a 1%er did not pay the nominal amount (other than the fact that they are marginal tax rates). I still think FDR did more of a dog and pony show than actually impose anything that significantly changed the social strata, but here are the sites I was looking at.

the tax foundation http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151...
the white house historical data http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

4/11/12

An overthrow of the government would take more than 1 man, if his death ended the momentum of the movement he had towards Socialism he clearly did not garner enough support to make a move against the US Government. Perhaps people talked about his politics in the living rooms of their homes over cocktails, but that's a far cry from getting an army to overthrow a government. If he were elected President I'd be interested to see how well he would have gotten along with Congress. Was he just going to say F the Constitution and fire them all?

Keep in mind, that a general fear and dislike of Communists, and Jews, and Socialists existed during this time. (I threw in Jews because they were considered by many to be utilizing Communism to garner power to take over the world). The fear didn't peak until after WW2, but there were things historically such as the pink scare, and others, that make me believe that there was still more negative sentiment than positive ones. I just think FDR was a populist like any president tries to be, and I dont think many of his decisions had a profoundly positive effect on the lives of people, other than his warm words during his Sunday radio broadcasts (historically speaking, the first people to utilize national media outlets geared towards youth have always won elections, and they have always been Democrats: radio, television, MTV, Facebook).

In reply to DangerZone
4/11/12
DangerZone:

They think they're people.

Woodhouse isn't people.

In reply to guyfromct
4/11/12
futurectdoc:
DangerZone:

They think they're people.

Woodhouse isn't people.

SOYLENT GREEN IS OWS PEOPLE!!!!!

In reply to swagon
4/12/12
swagon:
futurectdoc:
DangerZone:

They think they're people.

Woodhouse isn't people.

SOYLENT GREEN IS OWS PEOPLE!!!!!

Because Brawndo's got electrolytes

Get busy living

4/12/12

Ip if you would like to give away your money to whatever charity you want then more power to you. Same goes for Buffet, if he believes that he is not being taxed enough he can go ahead and make donations to the government for as much as he wants. This country was founded on the principals of economic freedom. This is allowing people to become as successful as they want to be. It is not the governments place to tell me what too much is, if I want to work my ass off and become successful then by God I will work my ass off and become successful. The day the government try's to step in and tell me, "no I'm sorry you don't deserve the money that you worked so hard for" this will be the day I leave and never look back

Which I do. But the fact is that society has developed an unhealthy obsession with wealth and conspicuous consumption. And practically everyone- except for a few people who deserve to be hurt anyways- is better off if we put a stop to that for two years. If we take two years off to give excess income to charity, we eliminate the perception that rich people have all of these ill-gotten gains and that the best way to get ahead is by cheating. We also literally drive the sociopaths of this country out of their minds- and hopefully towards institutions where they can get treatment.

This has everything to do with the rule of law and the mental health of the wealthy and upper-middle-class. The fact that a lot of money goes to charity is a nice side-effect, but the point of two years of charitable giving is to help reinforce the rule of law in this country, which is sorely lacking.

We don't want to turn out like the Roman Republic.

4/12/12

Ip if you would like to give away your money to whatever charity you want then more power to you. Same goes for Buffet, if he believes that he is not being taxed enough he can go ahead and make donations to the government for as much as he wants. This country was founded on the principals of economic freedom. This is allowing people to become as successful as they want to be. It is not the governments place to tell me what too much is, if I want to work my ass off and become successful then by God I will work my ass off and become successful. The day the government try's to step in and tell me, "no I'm sorry you don't deserve the money that you worked so hard for" this will be the day I leave and never look back.

I come from a family that is not rich, but I have family members that have started businesses and earn more than 500k per year. What you are not taking into consideration is all the struggles they had to go through in order to gain this success.

Also, by limiting the amount of income people can make to 500k, you would be eliminating the need to an entire industry of high-end luxury items. This in turn would cause a loss of millions of jobs, not just the CEOs or other rich people, but the cashiers at these stores or the clerks.

If no one is earning more than $500k per year there would be no incentive for people to create new industries. Things that we enjoy would not be here if there was no earning incentive, profit is the great motivator for this country and almost every other country out there. If you eliminate the motivator how much of society do you think is going to go to work hard every day? There is no "light at the end of the tunnel" anymore. Why should I go work when I can get paid by the government to sit at home and do nothing?

Sorry for the poor grammar, I am typing on cell phone in class lol

4/12/12

Refer to above comments regarding politicians, short term tax policies, and liberal media spins on anything effecting the money of rich people ;).

Obama has been going after $ being held in safe havens for the past couple of years if you were wondering about that, I think he brought back around $50B through his various programs and nailed over 20k people who were hiding money.

Pages

What's Your Opinion? Comment below:

Login or register to get credit (collect bananas).
All anonymous comments are unpublished until reviewed. No links or promotional material will be allowed. Most comments are published within 24 hours.
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling