The "Occupy" Movement

[McG]

It seems a referendum will decide if the Swiss will legislate against the 1%.

Swiss vote on proposal to limit top managers' pay
Proposal would keep compensation to no more than 12 times salary of lowest-paid
24 Nov 2013
CBC

Voters in prosperous Switzerland are delivering their verdict on a proposal to limit the pay of companies' highest-paid managers to at most 12 times that of their lowest-paid workers.

Sunday's referendum comes after voters in March voiced anger at perceived corporate greed by voting to boost shareholders' say on executive pay and ban one-off bonuses known as "golden hellos" and "goodbyes."

The young socialist backers of the new "1:12 initiative" say that imposing a legal limit on salaries would ensure fairer pay.

But their proposal is opposed by Swiss business, which argues that it would weaken the nation's competitiveness. Opponents include Sepp Blatter, the Swiss president of world soccer's governing body FIFA, who argues that it would have the side-effect of seriously damaging Swiss soccer.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/swiss-vote-on-proposal-to-limit-top-managers-pay-1.2438366

 

[Kirkhill]

It seems a referendum will decide if the Swiss will legislate against the 1%.http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/swiss-vote-on-proposal-to-limit-top-managers-pay-1.2438366

And here's the response: Don't be daft!

Swiss voters reject plan to cap executive pay
Swiss vote down plan to cap salaries of top executives after warning that it could harm the economy

 

[a_majoor]

The sort of intolerant, entitled and hyper sensitive thinking that is behind the "Occupy" movement is shown in all its glory at one of the Universities that spawned the sort of thinking behind "Occupy". As Instapundit comments:

"If you can’t take having your grammar errors corrected, you’re too dumb and immature to be in college, much less graduate school. Unsurprisingly, this was in the school of Education.

http://dailybruin.com/2013/11/20/students-defend-professor-after-sit-in-over-racial-climate/

Students defend professor after sit-in over racial climate
November 20, 2013
12:00 am
By Sam Hoff

Current and former students in the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies expressed their support for professor emeritus Val Rust following a demonstration in one of his graduate classes last Thursday.

Student demonstrators alleged that there is a “toxic” racial climate in the graduate school, including in Rust’s classroom. Organizers told the Daily Bruin last week that they decided to host the demonstration after a recent report examining racial discrimination among the university’s faculty stated that UCLA’s policies and procedures do not sufficiently address racially motivated instances of discrimination.

After Thursday’s sit-in, several current and former students said they did not believe there was a problem with racial discrimination in Rust’s class.

[UDPATED at 1 a.m.: In a letter sent to colleagues in the department after the sit-in, Rust said students in the demonstration described grammar and spelling corrections he made on their dissertation proposals as a form of "micro-aggression."

"I have attempted to be rather thorough on the papers and am particularly concerned that they do a good job with their bibliographies and citations, and these students apparently don't feel that is appropriate," Rust said in the letter.

He said the protesters were also responding to a conversation in class between two students about critical race theory that he allowed to take place by not stopping the discussion.

Rust added he thought the department should organize a town hall meeting later in the month to begin a dialogue.]

“Many of (the demonstrators’) individual stories were very touching and I feel something ought to be done to address their concerns,” he said in the letter.

Rust, who is giving a series of lectures in China this week, could not be reached for additional comment.

Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, the dean of the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, said in a letter to the school’s department of education Tuesday that he expects all members of the graduate school community to be respectful, and that acts of discrimination are not tolerated in the school.

“I expect of the entire GSE&IS; family – including faculty, students, and staff – to embody an ethos and practice based on respect, rigor and reflexivity,” he said in the letter.

Suárez-Orozco said the graduate school encourages safe spaces for debate.

“Acts of intolerance, discrimination, bullying, and overt and covert bias stand in complete opposition to the spirit that animates the (graduate school),” he said.

The demonstration’s organizers said they are aware of several examples in the graduate school where minority students claimed they faced challenges and “micro-aggressions” from professors.

Suárez-Orozco told the Bruin Tuesday that his office is working to establish basic facts of past incidents by reaching out to all parties involved.

“First we need to get the facts; we’ll proceed from there,” Suárez-Orozco said.

Nora Cisneros, a graduate student who participated in the sit-in, said the group chose to hold their protest because they feel Rust’s class does not encourage a climate where students of color can discuss issues of race openly.

Emily Le, a graduate student in the school who has known Rust for about 10 years, said she thought it was unjust for sit-in participants to accuse Rust of being part of a hostile environment because he is a supporter of intercultural learning and collaboration.

“It is disturbing that students would make such unfounded accusations based on misperceptions of what they believe as racism,” Le said.

Le said she thought the demonstrators should not have claimed to represent all students of color.

“If they were trying to create a bigger dialogue for the community to discuss, they would have chosen the town hall (meeting) we have once a quarter, or talked to the dean to discuss their issues,” Le said.

Le said the sit-in organizers should have emailed the entire department, so other minority students could choose whether to participate instead of being grouped as in support of the protest because they are students of color.

Kenjus Watson, a graduate student who participated in the sit-in, said he thinks incidents of racial profiling have taken place in the school for several decades, and that students who report incidents using traditional methods are often disregarded.

Watson said the protesters never stated that they represented all students of color in the division, but that the 25 protesters represent a significant portion of the minority population.

“Many of us have been through the formal complaint system of leveraging charges … the letters are reviewed, and we receive responses saying (the) charges have no merit,” Watson said.

Some students said they thought Thursday’s protest was focused more on humiliating a single professor than starting dialogue.

“I think the most unsettling thing was that it was in the name of a larger, legitimate cause, but it was so targeted at very specific people,” said Stephanie Kim, a graduate student who has worked with Rust for several years.

Kim said she thought the organizers should have reached out to the rest of the department in forums such as town hall meetings instead of planning the sit-in.

“Maybe (the demonstrators) do have legitimate grievances … but the way they chose to address their issues was by very aggressively showing up in one targeted professor’s class and using him as a scapegoat for much larger issues,” she said.

Cisneros and Watson said they thought the sit-in was warranted because of similar alleged incidents of racial discrimination over the past 20 years.

“The conversations and remedies we’ve had to take … we’ve tried to address (incidents of discrimination) in class,” Watson said. “This was the next logical step.”

In an emailed statement, Weiling Deng, a graduate student who worked with Rust on her master’s thesis, said she does not want conflicts to begin in the graduate school as a result of the sit-in.

Deng said Rust has demonstrated support for students of color throughout his time as a professor.

“I felt after reading the (Daily Bruin story) and knowing about the protest … that I was so innocent in thinking that all students in the department are friendly,” Deng said in a telephone interview. “Not only I was shocked, all students of (Rust) were shocked and most of his colleagues were shocked.”

Deng wrote in an email Monday that she wants the mood in the department to remain peaceful and scholarly.

“Voluntary supporters of Val Rust … don’t want to see and undergo an upgraded conflict in and out of our beloved department and university,” she wrote.

Email Hoff at shoff@media.ucla.edu.

This could equally go under the "Deconstructing Progressive Thought" or "Education Bubble" threads, it also seems cleat that this is a case of Campus Brownshirts attempting to dictate their will through the use of force, as well as making baffling use of language and claims of representation to confuse the issue and make actual debate impossible.

 

[ModlrMike]

WTF is "micro-aggression"?

 

[larry Strong]

WTF is "micro-aggression"?

Well you asked  :rofl::

According to Chester M. Pierce and Mary Rowe as, “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.” :stars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression



God help us all......

Larry

 

[cavalryman]

Well you asked  :rofl::

According to Chester M. Pierce and Mary Rowe as, “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.” :stars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression



God help us all......

Larry

So - translated to English, that would therefore mean:

Manufactured indignation trotted out by people seeking to use race as a means to excuse or cover personal failure, or to set low expectations  ;D

Nothing new to see here... 

 

[Jed]

Well you asked  :rofl::

According to Chester M. Pierce and Mary Rowe as, “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.” :stars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression



God help us all......

Larry

As the child says whining: "But mommy, he looked at me!"

 

[Nemo888]

Occupy did have some success. New banking disclosure rules for tax havens have scared the rich. Now they are liquidating bank balances and turning them into cash, precious metals, luxury goods and art. Freeports are booming.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21590353-ever-more-wealth-being-parked-fancy-storage-facilities-some-customers-they-are

Über-warehouses for the ultra-rich
Ever more wealth is being parked in fancy storage facilities. For some customers, they are an attractive new breed of tax haven

PASSENGERS at Findel airport in Luxembourg may have noticed a cluster of cranes a few hundred yards from the runway. The structure being erected looks fairly unremarkable (though it will eventually be topped with striking hexagonal skylights). Along its side is a line of loading bays, suggesting it could be intended as a spillover site for the brimming cargo terminal nearby. This new addition to one of Europe’s busiest air-freight hubs will not hold any old goods, however. It will soon be home to billions of dollars’ worth of fine art and other treasures, much of which will have been whisked straight from collectors’ private jets along a dedicated road linking the runway to the warehouse.

The world’s rich are increasingly investing in expensive stuff, and “freeports” such as Luxembourg’s are becoming their repositories of choice. Their attractions are similar to those offered by offshore financial centres: security and confidentiality, not much scrutiny, the ability for owners to hide behind nominees, and an array of tax advantages. This special treatment is possible because goods in freeports are technically in transit, even if in reality the ports are used more and more as permanent homes for accumulated wealth. If anyone knows how to game the rules, it is the super-rich and their advisers.

Because of the confidentiality, the value of goods stashed in freeports is unknowable. It is thought to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and rising. Though much of what lies within is perfectly legitimate, the protection offered from prying eyes ensures that they appeal to kleptocrats and tax-dodgers as well as plutocrats. Freeports have been among the beneficiaries as undeclared money has fled offshore bank accounts as a result of tax-evasion crackdowns in America and Europe.

 

[ModlrMike]

How is that a success? If the funds are in banks they're traceable and can be taxed. If they're in hard goods stashed in transit warehouses it's much harder to find them.

 

[Nemo888]

It is more difficult now that the wealth has been removed from the banks. Putting an expiry on the length of time goods can be "in transit" and demanding proper disclosure would end the freeport loophole. Now they can be kept in these warehouses of the rich indefinitely. Without occupy I don't think new bank disclosure laws would have made it through Congress or in the EU.  The rich are crafty though.

Freeports are a rather appealing target. Most of the goods would never even be reported stolen.

 

[Kirkhill]

....Putting an expiry on the length of time goods can be "in transit" ....

Perhaps you really mean to say "the length of time goods can be "owned""?

What business is it of yours if I choose to store my goods in Luxembourg, my local storage lockers, my Aunt Fannie's or on the walls of my living room?  They are mine no matter if they are in storage or "in transit" between stores.

 

[Nemo888]

For the same reason we demanded offshore accounts start declaring. Rich people should pay the same rate of taxes as you do and not be able to dodge them. This uber rich class has become a parasite on the real economy. Instead of paying taxes and supporting the economy they are hiding their wealth in positional goods. Things you put in your storage locker went through customs, paid duty and were taxed. They were not purchased with clandestine income and turned into a positional good to evade taxes.

 

[George Wallace]

For the same reason we demanded offshore accounts start declaring. Rich people should pay the same rate of taxes as you do and not be able to dodge them. This uber rich class has become a parasite on the real economy. Instead of paying taxes and supporting the economy they are hiding their wealth in positional goods. Things you put in your storage locker went through customs, paid duty and were taxed. They were not purchased with clandestine income and turned into a positional good to evade taxes.

Are you for real/


No wonder so many have you on IGNORE.

 

[ballz]

Are you for real/


No wonder so many have you on IGNORE.

Not that I have a dog in these personal spats, but your personal shot via ad populum is pretty childish at best.

It really is not a secret that the bigger corporations and wealthier individuals are able to escape taxes through accounting loopholes that have not been closed and definitely need to be. These are the kind of loopholes that the small business/corporation or common folk cannot exploit and so end up paying these taxes. Both large corporations and very rich people are able to do this, and it *is* unfair.

 

[George Wallace]

Not that I have a dog in these personal spats, but your personal shot via ad populum is pretty childish at best.

Hello Pot.

It really is not a secret that the bigger corporations and wealthier individuals are able to escape taxes through accounting loopholes that have not been closed and definitely need to be. These are the kind of loopholes that the small business/corporation or common folk cannot exploit and so end up paying these taxes. Both large corporations and very rich people are able to do this, and it *is* unfair.

Those loopholes are used by people who deem it necessary and beneficial to themselves and take the time and effort to use them.  Because it is predominantly the "rich" who do so, and you do not; whose fault is it?

Another way to look at it, as I have run into in the past with the "Make the Rich Pay" crowd a few decades back goes something like this:

Make the Rich Pay Girl:  "The Rich should pay, and the middle and lower classes should not."
Me:  "So, if you make the Rich pay, and you don't, then they become poor, and you become rich.  Do you expect to then have to pay?"
Make the Rich Pay Girl:  "No.  The Rich should Pay."
Me:  "But you just made the Rich Pay and therefore become Poor.  You now have more money than they do.  You are now the Rich.  Shouldn't you now have to pay?"
Make the Rich Pay Girl:  "No."

She could not grasp the concept that if she became the Rich in this process, that she should be made to pay. 

Next step.  Let's place higher taxes on the Rich and large corporations.  What do you do when they decide to leave the country for good, taking their money, business, etc. with them offshore?  Hundreds of thousands would soon become unemployed and destitute.  What now?

If this were Star Trek The Next Generation, this would not be a problem.  No one would need money.  Unfortunately, reality bites.

Now, really?  Are any of these new name for an old movement, The Occupy Movement, really basing their thesis on reality and logic?  Not at all.

 

[ModlrMike]

Which takes us back to here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Next step.  Let's place higher taxes on the Rich and large corporations.  What do you do when they decide to leave the country for good, taking their money, business, etc. with them offshore?  Hundreds of thousands would soon become unemployed and destitute.  What now?

Which is what happened in the U.K. in the 70's - 80's. The rich took their money and moved to Ireland which had much more lenient tax laws.

 

[ballz]

Those loopholes are used by people who deem it necessary and beneficial to themselves and take the time and effort to use them.  Because it is predominantly the "rich" who do so, and you do not; whose fault is it?

Another way to look at it, as I have run into in the past with the "Make the Rich Pay" crowd a few decades back goes something like this:

Make the Rich Pay Girl:  "The Rich should pay, and the middle and lower classes should not."
Me:  "So, if you make the Rich pay, and you don't, then they become poor, and you become rich.  Do you expect to then have to pay?"
Make the Rich Pay Girl:  "No.  The Rich should Pay."
Me:  "But you just made the Rich Pay and therefore become Poor.  You now have more money than they do.  You are now the Rich.  Shouldn't you now have to pay?"
Make the Rich Pay Girl:  "No."

She could not grasp the concept that if she became the Rich in this process, that she should be made to pay. 

Next step.  Let's place higher taxes on the Rich and large corporations.  What do you do when they decide to leave the country for good, taking their money, business, etc. with them offshore?  Hundreds of thousands would soon become unemployed and destitute.  What now?

If this were Star Trek The Next Generation, this would not be a problem.  No one would need money.  Unfortunately, reality bites.

Now, really?  Are any of these new name for an old movement, The Occupy Movement, really basing their thesis on reality and logic?  Not at all.

Thank you for that very eloquent lesson in the Chicago School of Economics. While I am aware of how that works, I think you are missing the point I am trying to make.

Because of these loopholes, the tax system becomes regressive. Surely you don't think that the rich should pay a LOWER tax rate than the middle class or the poor?

I no longer have my public finance textbook or I would offer the actual chart, but an easy example is that, in Canada, they tracked the taxes actually paid by the folks in the highest tax bracket ($135,054 of taxable income and up). The funny thing was, someone at the lower end of the bracket was actually paying more of their income in taxes than someone at the higher end. The peak was at about $300,000, those folks were paying more of their income than anyone, people making 1 million a year were paying about the same as those making $150,000.

Unfortunately, those folks making $300,000 a year simply don't have an accountant on salary. This is not a question of "effort," it's the accountant that does the work. It's simply not worth the pay-off for those making $300,000 a year. That doesn't justify in any way the existence of the loopholes that actually make this scenario possible.

My understanding is that in the US, this problem is much, much worse (unless you are one of the rich folk).

So it is not about "make the rich pay," it is about "make the rich pay at least the same tax rate as everyone else."

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So wouldn't the solution then be to simplify the tax code?

Everybody gets the first (pick your favourite multiple of thousand dollars) for free, and then a flat 10% (or 15, or 20%- pick according to your political bent) on everything after that. No exemptions or write offs, period.

Or would we put too many accounts and CRA employees out of work?

 

[George Wallace]

You don't have to be "RICH" to hire an accountant to do your taxes.  Don't use that as an excuse.