The lower 90% now control less wealth than the top 1%.

If the top 10% pays 70% of taxes, the top 10% is getting a really good deal.

>The public is the root cause of our problems. They decide what happens by how they vote or deciding not to vote.

Nick, we agree here as well, but I wish the electoral process was streamlined and more transparent. Popular vote, clean and simple. Term limits on congresspeople. Yes, people need to exercise their right to vote, and be smart about it, but it is troubling what happens behind closed doors once people are elected. The back alleys and channels of Capitol Hill harbor dark secrets that too often hold more power than we'd like to think.

"Public Education - In California the majority of public education is funded by property taxes. In the real life example I gave you in my previous post, my friend pays almost 37 times as much property tax than me. As most wealthy people do, his kids went to private schools including college. Most wealthy people do not use the public education system. (I think education should not be publicly funded in the first place)."

Mr. Gatel,

I am curious about what you believe an alternate system to publicly funded educational institutions might be and how it might work.

You might also suggest to those wealthy who dealt with Bernie Madoff that they do not require regulations to protect them or their money.

this you tube vid of an unaired fox news interview with an ows'er was entertaining. it would be shocking if this kind of editing was happening for a reason

"California is a great example of what happens when big government runs amok."


Or a great example of leading the way for America in environmental protection, social justice, high-technology/future jobs, etc.

But if we are going go down the unsupported stereotype road...

"Appalachia is a great example of what happens when people destroy their land, air, and water from coal mining whilst marrying their cousins and smurfing for pseudoephedrine."

Jerry said,

"Warren Buffet owns some companies that make him money

Those companies hire people that are publically educated with tax dollars. If Warren's companies had to completely train all their employees it would cost a large amount."

----------------------------

Don't forget that companies pay property taxes also. So in California where property taxes pay for public education, companies are already paying for public education. Also many companies reimburse employees for college tuition and spend a lot of money training their employees.


Jerry also said,

"And regarding the taxes of those companies, almost all of Exxon and Chevron taxes are international. They should also pay U.S. taxes and it would help our deficit."

----------------------------

The company isn't going the pay the tax, consumers will pay it by paying higher prices. Here is an example, since I posted numbers about Chevron's 2009 Income Taxes.

Chevron's net profit margin in 2009 was 6.26%. If they had to pay the additional 35% US Federal Income Tax, their net profit percentage would drop down to 2.39%, which is a totally unacceptable return on investment. So they would simply increase the price of their products to earn that 6.26%, which is actually low for the oil industry. Average is around 8.7%. They would have to raise their prices by at least 40%. What does that mean? Well if we look at the average cost of regular gasoline for 2011, regular is $3.79 per gallon. Raise the price by 40%, the new price is $5.31.

For a perspective on net profit margins...

Apple (5 year average) = 18.7%
Microsoft (5 year average) = 29.2%

If my education, elementary school through college was not publicly funded then I would not have been able to go to college. Nick, maybe that worked for you and your children but for many in this country, education would just be a dream. I think that you might be hinting at a voucher program where the states and the federal government pay the families for whatever school they would attend? I am curious about your post.
I guess it is the age old "keep the lower classes uneducated" deal.

They say they want to end corruption between government and banks/corporations but they want to give the government more power to legislate more regulations.

they also say there is a need to have dialogue about fixed income securities investors driving a backed mortage securities market into making bad decisions.

the no income no asset loans that brokers snatched up were toxic waste, they knew it. CDO companies knew it as well & were bundling toxic waste with reliable performers in order for traunches to get an overall triple A credit rating... aka, bad investments were being officially labeled by credit rating agencies as being "as good as cash"

They talk about democracy (USA is not and never has been a democracy) but want to instill lots of communist/socialist things like a guaranteed living wage regardless of employment. Universal healthcare and put insurance companies out of business.

they also talk about Obama selling out Public Option to Private Hospital & Big Pharm Lobby well before his legislation hit the floor. in fact, public option never saw the congressional floor and Chip Kahn (CEO of FAH) knew it never would. let's not think about Nixon's own proposed Universal Healthcare (CHIP) or that the Republican's Heritage Foundation was brewing similar health legislation in the 80s...

given that this President has managed to block efforts to prosecute Bush & Admin for torture, expanded for-profit security firms role in US military operations, set records for implementing covert forces across the globe and selling arms... his foreign policy alone begs for best republican president since lincoln

wall street is of bipartisan concern. generalizations are being succesfully used as a basic logistical tactic within the Hegelian Dialectic - control the masses by creating conflict amongst themselves. united we stand, divided...

Mr. Gatel,

I am curious about what you believe an alternate system to publicly funded educational institutions might be and how it might work.

You might also suggest to those wealthy who dealt with Bernie Madoff that they do not require regulations to protect them or their money.

------

Private education. Parents pay for it. They use the money they save with lower taxes. If we assume government should provide public services (which they should not), then those who use those services should pay 100% of the cost.


Not all wealthy people invested with Madoff. Just the people who thought they could receive an extraordinary return on investment. If it is too good to be true, then a smart person would say, "wait a minute, this is too good to be true." I do not feel sorry for anyone who lost money with Madoff. Investing money is a risk. Smart people research their investments.

I assume you are referring only to post-secondary education? Or should we eliminate compulsory public education altogether and encourage parents to enroll their children in whatever private institutions might replace our current public K-12 schools?

The irony is, of course, that the sort of policies advocated by the OWS folks make income distribution worse, not better. The make-up of the top might change a little, but certainly not completely.

And everyone else would suffer from a reduced standard of living.

Let's not spend so much time obsessing over who has what share of which pie and focus on getting more pies.

Watch this for a laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QTfNEDgusQ&feature=player_embedded#

Edited by davidlutz on 10/09/2011 13:35:53 MDT.

Only the rich should be informed.
Only the rich deserve to be educated.
Only the rich deserve to chose which wars the poor fight.
Only the rich deserve to be involved in directing the country.

Public education prevents this utopia.

"The public is the root cause of our problems. They decide what happens by how they vote or deciding not to vote."

Voter manipulation is the root of the problem

Sophisticated propoganda techniques to get people to vote against their best interest

Like the politicians will say some inflamatory things about Obama wanting to take away your guns and then one swath of the voters will vote for them. The politicians never do anything one way or the other, just instill fear.

Or Obama wants to abort babies - there goes another swath of voters.

Or they'll make subtle racist statements - like talking about "tar babys", which more commonly refers to a situation that's difficult to get out of, but can also be a derogatory term for black people, so all the racists out there know what they mean, but if called on it they can just deny that it was a racist statement

Or in the Florida presidentail election, they got the names of Florida felons, and then challenged voters in democratic leaning precints who had similar names. That enabled Bush to win Florida and thus the presidency. Look up "voter suppression" in wikipedia.

Cameron, poignant as always!

Ken said,

"If my education, elementary school through college was not publicly funded then I would not have been able to go to college. Nick, maybe that worked for you and your children but for many in this country, education would just be a dream. I think that you might be hinting at a voucher program where the states and the federal government pay the families for whatever school they would attend? I am curious about your post."

-----

Education is not a right. It is something we should pay for as individuals. Public education takes the subject matter out of control of the parents. I do not like what/how we are teaching our children. Quit taxing the people to death and let them decide where they want to spend their money.

Ken, I went to public elementary and high school. My parents paid property taxes to help pay for it. But it did not cover all the costs obviously. But the schools held me back. What I learned in 12 years, I could have learned in 6 or 8 years. My parents did not get a good return on their investment. When I was a young man I could not afford a public college education. All my money went for food and housing. Then I had kids. I worked a full time job (50-60 hours per week), bought a couple investment properties and owned a business in my spare time. My wife did not work; her job was to properly raise the kids. I did not have much money to spend on consumer goods. Since I owned more than one property, I paid more property taxes than many people, but could not afford to go to college. I also put my kids in private schools, because the public system was in shambles. It took me 23 years to get my BA degree. Between 1987 and 1992 I went to school 5 nights a week. I did my homework on weekends when I was not running my business. I did not sleep much during those 5 years. When I got the degree, my kids went to my graduation. At the time I was working as a mechanic in a Chevron station and operating a mail house business I built from scratch. I did not have the capital to properly grow the business so I had to work full time too. The mail business netted me $30K per year. The mail house business was dependent on computer applications. Since I could not afford to go to school to learn how to use computers and software, I had to teach myself. I graduated in 1992 and my transportation was a 1975 Chevy Monte Carlo. Basically I had two full time jobs and went to school at night. I also found time to go backpacking and camping with my kids. I got my first "well paying job" when I was 48 years old. My degree helped me get it, but my work experience was more important in landing that job. It can be done. The opportunity is there, but it is not easy.

Nick, I love hearing stories like yours. Hard work and perseverance can and does payoff, and it certainly did for you.

However I disagree with the statement that education is not a right. Yes it is.

So you do believe in the privatization of all schooling in the US. I am interested in hearing how this might be workable and how it might make our nation more competitive in the global economy.

Your personal story is very admirable but I am uncertain why you would want anyone else to struggle to the same degree for success if it is not strictly necessary.

I suppose that since I feel it is in the best interests of our society to provide its youth with the basic tools to become useful members of society I disagree that education is not a right although it might be more accurate to describe it as a privilege of membership in the society.

"Between 1987 and 1992 I went to school 5 nights a week. I did my homework on weekends when I was not running my business. I did not sleep much during those 5 years. When I got the degree, my kids went to my graduation. At the time I was working as a mechanic in a Chevron station and operating a mail house business I built from scratch. I did not have the capital to properly grow the business so I had to work full time too. The mail business netted me $30K per year. The mail house business was dependent on computer applications. Since I could not afford to go to school to learn how to use computers and software, I had to teach myself. I graduated in 1992 and my transportation was a 1975 Chevy Monte Carlo. Basically I had two full time jobs and went to school at night. I also found time to go backpacking and camping with my kids. I got my first "well paying job" when I was 48 years old. My degree helped me get it, but my work experience was more important in landing that job. It can be done."

This is a compelling story, Nick, but you can't build an education system based on the experiences and results of someone obviously a couple standard deviations to the right on the bell curves for I.Q. and motivation/work ethic. Any education system that meets the needs of the majority of the population and, therefore, the underlying society has to be designed for the capabilities of the majority that falls within a standard deviation to the right and left of center. Anything else will not provide enough educated people to ensure a strong, sustainable society. This is particularly critical in a democratic society, where an educated citizenry is essential to a healthy democracy. We no longer have such an education system, and the results are painfully obvious.

"although it might be more accurate to describe it as a privilege of membership in the society."

I would take it a step further and make it an obligation, lest a person become a burden to society.

I don't know if public education is a right, but after WWII, the U.S. publically funded education which resulted in all the high tech revolution that we're currently enjoying the fruits of.

A country would be stupid not to publically educate it's people.