US Uncut - against corporations that avoid paying taxes

I just got an email. US Uncut now has a forum to help organize if anyone is interested.

 

Rebecca: I don't know anything about US Uncut either. It seems to have become pretty active pretty quickly, having been formed in February, this year. Its appears to be an offshoot of a British group: UK Uncut or something like that. The British group seems to have a similar bent having focused on corporations not paying taxes.

The US founder is a politically active young man from the South.

Actually in reading the following it seems to carry the same type of anger that the tea party carries...only it points the anger at a different direction: (anger seems to be in these days)

 

That's an interesting comparison. lol. You're right though, anger does seem to be in these days. Anyway, here's a not as angry protest at the B of A - watch this:

[video=youtube;gdxTcaCS65Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdxTcaCS65Y[/video]

I think one advantage US Uncut will have, is that they are so incredibly focused. It's "get rid of the tax loopholes for large corporations, and make them pay their fair share of taxes." That seems to be it for them (at least for now).

 

Wow, just went out to their forum. Per their forum members, they are a progressive,liberal movement pushing a pro-union agenda, partnered with Moveon.org. Many of their photos have them carrying pro-union banners in their protests. I don't understand why every reasonable movement gets co-opted by people with marginal agendas.

 

IMO, the website and forum appears very tightly focused towards eliminating tax loopholes for large corporations. I don't really see where US Uncut is "pushing" a pro-union agenda. I actually went to their YouTube channel, and don't see anything about unions. Some members might be supportive of unions, but I'm not sure how you could really say the US Uncut movement is necessarily pushing a pro-union agenda. With the involvement with Moveon.org, they have some similar goals. As you probably read in same thread, Moveon wants to eliminate the "Bush tax breaks", "corporate tax havens", and "tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas." From what I understand, Moveon has joined US Uncut in a few protests against corporations in regards to the tax loopholes.

 

Unfortunately, per their members define the organization's mission slightly differently, though they use the tax issue to draw in the unwitting.

An Anti-Austerity group. They don't want the government to cut spending. That is their stated goal and, as the poster points out, its actually in their name. Its also on the posters they carry at the rallies.


Which are also filled with pro-union posters.

Their relationship with MoveOn is more defined than that.

This is how they describe their membership

And this is the partisan nature of their target selection:

More union support:

Its a shame really. I agree with preventing tax avoidance by big companies, but if I were to support an organization that supports government unions, I would be attacking one special interest to the benefit of another.

 

An Anti-Austerity group in the sense that:

So, they think that the tax loopholes can be eliminated, and that money can instead be used to avoid cutting programs in education, health, job creation, and other public programs. I think you would like them better if they wanted to cut government spending, and just use the money saved by eliminating tax loopholes to pay off the debt. That's reasonable. If you flip the coin though, it's what I didn't like about the Republicans in the debt ceiling negotiations. They want to cut spending in areas that really hurt struggling Americans, but they don't want to eliminate the tax loopholes, tax breaks, and tax havens for large corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

As far as unions, from the same thread and member you're quoting from, she also says, "US Uncut isn't specifically pro-union, but the major point of highlighting tax-dodging by major corporations is to bring attention to the fact that the system is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful and to enlighten people as to the myriad forms that this takes."

Anyway, it might seem like it, but I'm not necessarily trying to promote them. I just like the main message of it.

 

Exactly. Their goal is not so much forcing tax cheats to pay their bills as it is appropriating the funds to prevent cuts to overpaid government workers. Not to quote the president, but I favor a "Balanced approach". Get GE to pay it's fair share, AND cut the wages of all government employees to the CPI, while at the same time abolishing public employee unions.

I think that is a gross mischaracterization of the stated goals of the tea party, the people driving for the cuts. I think if you ran on self-identified tea party members, you would find greater than 90% support for fixing the tax code to get companies like GE, BofA, Fox, and the rest of the fortune 500 to pay a reasonable tax rate. The problem is the politi-speak. When Obama says "close tax loopholes", most people I know interpret that as, "punish his political enemies, while protecting the special interests that put him in power by means of the tax code". That interpretation is more than a little justified, considering how the stimulus money was distributed. When Obama says, "tax the rich", he openly admits that means make the tax code MORE progressive, MORE complicated, and defines rich as 200k a year or greater. He has to define it that way because he knows full well that the top income earners in this country could not solve the debt issues of this nation, even if they were taxed at 100%.

You did, however, correctly assess my opinion on how additional revenues should be used. The idea of using tax revenue to "help those who are hurting" implies the government should be in the business of wealth redistribution and charity. The idea of incurring more debt, or even maintaining our existing debt levels to accomplish that, or any other goal, is financial insanity. Its going to be hard to redistribute money from the rich to the poor when all the money collected from the rich is used to service interest on the debt, which is now growing by 1.5 TRILLION dollars a year. Even Keynesians have been forced to acknowledge that increased government spending to induce economic growth does not work as a long term strategy, and we are on year three of this insanity. The presidents(Bush and Obama) shot their load, and it didn't work. Now its time to deal with the consequences.

Unfortunately, the system is always rigged in favor of the rich. Picketing GE because they cheat on their taxes seems far less productive than picketing the politicians who facilitate that process. GE is behaving EXACTLY how I expect them to behave. The government unions behave EXACTLY how I expect them to behave. Welfare queens behave EXACTLY how I expect them to behave. Even the politicians behave EXACTLY how I expect them to behave. I cant ask the welfare guy to quit being a lazy scumbag who surfs a system that supports his behavior. I cant ask GE not to lobby congress and exploit every tax loophole to the best of their ability. I cant ask public labor unions not to lobby their employers(politicians) for higher wagers, which will make their way back to them as campaign contributions later on. These people are ALL acting in their own best interests, and they will continue to do so even if a few smelly hippies picket their offices.

What I CAN do is apply pressure to the elected people in office, by threatening to have them thrown out of office in their own primary. I can create an environment where people will spit their names out, as if they were talking about Jeffery Dahmer, long after they have left their position in public office. With that pressure, perhaps I can change their motivations to work on behalf of the American people instead of the special interests asking them for special breaks in exchange for special favors. I don't have any carrots, only sticks. Their carrot should be their own good name, and perhaps a second or third term in office. Their carrot should be pride in their service to this nation. It makes me physically ill to hear politicians talk about their "service" to this nation, to the tune of 220k$ a year with annual raises, caddilac health care, and a guaranteed cushy high paying lobbyist/consultant/board member job waiting for them when they get done with their "service". What a joke. It seems they take the word service to mean the same thing I mean when I say I'm going to "service" my wife.

I like the message of people and companies paying their taxes as well. Whether or not that is the main message of USUncut is debatable, in my opinion.

 

You troublemaker!

Lol, just kidding. I read that thread. That one individual wasn't that cool, you know who. I think I'll mark him as a foe.

Their goal is forcing tax cheats to pay. Same as you. It's just you don't agree as to where the proceeds should go. As far as government unions, we're probably on the same page. I'm not against unions in the private sector, as in the case with IKEA, it seemed to be the only way the workers would be treated fairly.

A gross mischaracterization? I think that what I described, is what happened.

And, as far as the Tea Partiers go, I don't think eliminating tax loopholes for large corporations is even on the list. Okay, here are the 15 core beliefs of the Tea Party (which say what they want to do):

Who knows? Maybe they meant to list "eliminate the tax loopholes, and tax breaks for large corporations and the wealthiest Americans" as #16 - right under having everyone speaking English and displaying traditional values. Oh wait, nope. I don't think so. It looks like it might conflict with 10 and 11.

Yes, I am implying the government is in the business of wealth redistribution and charity. Because, well, they are. Officially, since the 30's. I think. With the conditions we are currently facing, if we abruptly stopped, it could lead to very negative consequences. We need to understand why people are on welfare, and attack the cause. Eliminate fraud and waste. Gradual reduction of dependence. There are other ways we can reduce spending, like stop sending money to countries that hate us anyway. Stuff like that.

I think there is some value in picketing the actual companies, because it helps to create public awareness. However, I do agree with what you're saying. "With that pressure, perhaps I can change their motivations to work on behalf of the American people instead of the special interests asking them for special breaks in exchange for special favors."

Very well said.

Sure, it's debatable.

 

Just doing my job .

#4 -Eliminate Special Interests

Tax loopholes are the result of special interests plain and simple. Even the mortgage interest deduction is of special interest to home owners. Why should renters pay as much or more for the same structure, and not get 33% back in tax deductions because they don't have the credit to qualify for a loan?

The problem with "tax loopholes" is, the phrase itself means different things to different people. I'm sure most people I know, including you most likely, would not characterize the mortgage interest deduction on your primary residence as a "tax loophole". Our tax code is a massive puzzle, full of small and large nooks and crannies where "the rich corporations" hide their money. To my way of thinking, adding another 2000 pages of complexity to the code to eliminate tax loopholes will actually have the opposite effect. I'm not advocating for a flat tax, yet, but I do think we need to start removing things from the code, not adding to it.

LoL. That, and the fact it is an Obama talking point meant to redirect attention from his poor leadership. See the Frank-Dodd Legislation for what Obama thinks is Wall Street reform, pushing it through with control of both houses of congress. Now, instead of CEO's getting outrageous salaries approved by their friends on boards of directors at the expense of the share holders, the shareholders get a non-binding vote on their pay! That otta fix the problem!!! If "too big to fail" was a problem in 2008, you should see the size of our corporate giants post consolidation during the Obama presidency.

Tea party values may also be talking points, we shall see. At least, so far, they haven't proven to be a bunch of liars, like our president. Given some amount of time elevated to a position of power, I have no doubt the leaders they elect will also lie become opportunistic, just like our president. Michelle Bachman, IMO, started her entire campaign off that way. Shes an embarrassment to the movement. Power corrupts, which is why we need limited government.

Which is why they created methadone for heroine addicts. At least with Medicare and Social Security, you can say the benefits are less special interest. Every American who reaches age 65 receives them, though I have no statistics on what % of Americans that is.

Interestingly, welfare itself is part of the cause. Eliminating fraud and waste is another talking point. Remember the president claimed he was going to pay for Obama care by doing just that? He even went down the path of claiming he would have clandestine investigators randomly auditing, doctors, claims, etc, which could have an actual effect on fraud and waste. The public worker employee unions weren't too big of a fan of that idea, so it quickly got nixed, which once again takes us back to special interests.

That message is catching on in both parties

 

unsubscribe to the spam Rebecca, hehehe

 

I don't have much time right now. I can only answer the first part of your post, then I'll be back tomorrow or the next day, to respond to the rest of it...

I know. LOL.

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with them getting rid of the mortgage deduction. I went and posted on the Tea Party forum asking if they want to get rid of the tax loopholes for large corporations, and end the Bush tax cuts for the rich. So far, the rest of the members ignored me, but the "Tea Party Founder" had an interesting comment. I do think that I'll read that book. Anyway, I'll be back later.

 

What is it that you dislike about Bachman? Someone started a thread about her on the Tea Party forum saying "You go girl!" Not a single response. Just the sound of crickets chirping.

Sure. With Social Security, everyone pays into it, and then starts collecting at a certain age. But with welfare, what is the methadone? Especially with the high unemployment. I'm sure many don't want to collect, they just want to eat. One could say "toughen up, we're cutting you off." Spending will go way down, depressing the economy even more. Crime rates would probably soar.There would be many more foreclosures, homelessness, and suffering. So, what I'm saying, is we need a better plan than just eliminating it. To start, we need more jobs. If we attacked the job situation, it would reduce welfare on its own. I'm not sure if you would like this idea, but about a month ago I was reading this article about unemployment in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, they have a lot of foreign workers that take jobs in the private sector, while regular citizens are struggling with unemployment. They're starting to rate companies "excellent", "green", "yellow" or "red" based on %'s of foreign workers and Saudi citizens they employ. Basically, they're penalizing Saudi companies that hire too many foreigners, and offering incentives to ones that hire mainly citizens. I thought of how certain aspects of this idea could possibly be applied to US companies that outsource. I'm not exactly sure how it would work, just a thought. I think there are many ways that unemployment could be addressed that we haven't even tried.

Eliminating fraud and waste may be a talking point, but it's another good idea.

That's good.