Home > Protest > Short post-raid videos at Occupy Eureka

Short post-raid videos at Occupy Eureka

Singer Josephine Johnson posted a few (thankfully) short interview videos shot after the Monday morning police raid on Occupy Eureka. She got comments from Sheriff Mike Downey, two Occupiers, and this gentleman who doesn’t fit the negative stereotypes promoted by the anti-Occupy movement.

  1. November 14, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    Occupy Wall Street is being evicted now!

  2. Anonymous
    November 14, 2011 at 10:48 pm

    “The whole world is watching!” Well, not on CNN, MSNBC or Fox News.

  3. Anonymous
    November 14, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    Well, the BBC is on the story at least.

  4. Goldie
    November 14, 2011 at 10:56 pm

    live stream 16,000 viewers

  5. tra
    November 14, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    Let’s compare the charges and the treatment of, on the one hand, the Occupy protesters, who were jailed for “disorderly conduct” with bail set at $5,000 – $10,000, and on the other hand, the Eureka cop who was recntly busted for possession of numerous illegal drugs, including heroin, and for harrassment of his ex-wife while on duty, vandalism and a number of other charges, yet was cited and released without bail and never spent even one night in jail.

  6. Anonymous
    November 14, 2011 at 11:23 pm

    Rick ,

    Are you saying that an eviction will take place that is goiing to bring an end to all of the protesting ?

  7. Richard
    November 15, 2011 at 12:03 am

    Or how about the treatment of the rioters at Penn State who overturned and set fire to a newsman, but not one arrest was made?!

    It’s interesting that in NYC and I’m sure here in Eureka the Powers-That-Be all thought that once the weather turned the Occupiers would give up and move on, but in the end, it was the authorities that could not wait out the weather (which at this point might only be a matter of weeks).

    I have issues with some of the folks who were at Occupy Eureka as I feel that some of them are of no help to any of us, or to themselves, but nothing they’ve done justifies the police brutality we saw ever so briefly on the Ch 3 news clip (sec 34-40)
    or to them fencing off the lawn (Murl says protesting is allowed just not camping, but we’re going to remove the space where you would do the protest?!?!).

    More then anything, when ever Occupiers are removed the most important thing is for other people to step up and re-occupy the space. I hope people will encourage all of the Occupy Arcata and HSU protesters to move to Eureka for the time being, as that space must be occupied more then any other. Even just to go there in shifts and all of us should be there from 5-6pm each evening to show solidarity. In fact, with the so called trouble makers in jail I’d be interested to know how the EPD will justify further actions.

    Unfortunately none of this plays well for the incumbent Supervisors all of whom will need to take responsibility for setting lose the EPD which as we all know has been without adult supervision since the dismissal of Chief Garr Nielsen.

    I hope people will get involved in the next two city council races in Eureka in hopes that we can oust the current council majority, and it’s three former law enforcement members and maybe one day Eureka will be lucky enough to find another police chief half as good as Garr was!

  8. skippy
    November 15, 2011 at 12:58 am

    Nice job interviewing Josephine, and thanks for speaking out Art, Chives, Ralph, and Sheriff Downey in the (thankfully short) but (thoughtfully well-balanced) clips here.

  9. Anonymous
    November 15, 2011 at 5:27 am

    Really folks don’t you have anything better to do?

    I guess you don’t.

  10. Six AM
    November 15, 2011 at 6:12 am

    Wow. I’m normally not a fan of the MSM, but this interview Heraldo has found is so professional and informative! The reporter shows interest in her interviewee, and she found a thoughtful and intelligent man to interview instead of a stereotype. Which TV station put this together? When was it aired?

    Oh. Silly me.

    In any event, thank you to the interviewer and interviewee.

  11. Plain Jane
    November 15, 2011 at 6:55 am

    The National Lawyers Guild obtained a court order allowing Occupy Wall Street protesters to return with tents to the park. The guild said the injunction prevents the city from enforcing park rules on Occupy Wall Street protesters.

    Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city knew about the court order but had not seen it and would go to court to fight it. He said the city wants to protect people’s rights, but if a choice must be made, it will protect public safety.


  12. which supervisors voted to harrass protesters?
    November 15, 2011 at 8:10 am

    The government and their police force couldn’t be saying it any louder or clearer: “You people are our bitches, we will not allow you to protest.”

    Was the Humboldt Board of Supervisors’ vote to evict the Eureka protesters unanimous? I want to know which of our Supervisors gave the thumbs up for the harrassment and who was on the peoples’ side.

  13. November 15, 2011 at 8:41 am

    Murl Harpham sais on KMUD last night that the directive came from the County Administrative Officer.

  14. which supervisors voted to harrass protesters?
    November 15, 2011 at 8:46 am

    There was a blip, either on this blog or another, that said the Board of Supervisors held a quick vote and decided to evict

    Who, exactly, gave the order and which of our local representatives gave it the thumbs up? A very important question regarding how many will vote in the future, including me.

  15. Dumb Founded
    November 15, 2011 at 8:46 am

    Murl takes his orders from the county now?

  16. Dumb Founded
    November 15, 2011 at 8:48 am

    Never mind I get it, the county has mental health services and the city of Eureka doesn’t.

  17. which supervisors voted to harrass protesters?
    November 15, 2011 at 9:25 am

    All I know is, the police force doesn’t do overtime in riot gear unless somebody in a suit tells them to. Who among Humboldt’s government told the police to do this, and who among our representatives supported that decision?

  18. Right Twinker
    November 15, 2011 at 9:26 am

    If Murl takes his orders from the county, doesn’t that make him insubordinate? Isn’t the chain of command city council to city manager to chief of police?

    He can be fired for insubordination and he should be.

  19. High Finance
    November 15, 2011 at 9:27 am

    This has nothing to do with protesting and everything to do with anarchy.

    All else is bull.

  20. November 15, 2011 at 9:46 am

    If Murl takes his orders from the county, doesn’t that make him insubordinate?.

    Nope. If the city manager or city council asked Harpham to do something and he didn’t do it, that would be insubordination.

    As it is, he’s enforcing state law and county ordinances as per the request of the owner of a property in Eureka: The County of Humboldt, through the Board of Supervisors or its Executive Officer.

    It’s no different than if these same people tried to set up camp in my front lawn on E Street in Eureka and I asked the police to remove them.

  21. Percy
    November 15, 2011 at 9:48 am

    I hope you get to see what real anarchy is bullshitter.

  22. which supervisors voted to harrass protesters?
    November 15, 2011 at 9:48 am

    “It’s no different than if these same people tried to set up camp in my front lawn on E Street in Eureka and I asked the police to remove them.”

    It’s substantially different. Don’t be stupid.

  23. Percy
    November 15, 2011 at 9:52 am

    We, the people, don’t own your front yard Fred, but we own that patch of grass.

  24. Anonymous
    November 15, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Is there an email list, a website or a blog that gives the latest news about Occupy Eureka? Will a mass rally in support of the occupiers be held soon?

  25. November 15, 2011 at 10:07 am

    …but we own that patch of grass.

    No more than anybody else in the county does and that’s subject to rules of use as determined by the people of the county through the Board of Supervisors. The BoS have a responsibility to maintain both the property itself and order on that property.

    I- and I know I’m far from the only one- think the BoS would be in dereliction of their duty to the public to allow overnight use of the courthouse lawn. Should they change their mind and allow overnight use, then more than likely the police wouldn’t interfere and you could have at it.

  26. HaHa
    November 15, 2011 at 10:11 am

    Fred on the other hand is a wannabe right wing fascist Republican. But since he likes pot the fascists won’t have him in their little tent so he has become a phony libertarian.

  27. Now Read This!
    November 15, 2011 at 10:30 am

    Bonus ArmyFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
    Bonus Army Conflict

    Bonus Army marchers (left) confront the police.
    Date July 28, 1932
    Location Washington D.C., United States of America
    Result Bonus Army dispersed, demands rejected

    Bonus Army United States Army
    Commanders and leaders
    Walter W. Waters
    William Hushka †
    Eric Carlson † Herbert Hoover
    Douglas MacArthur
    Dwight D. Eisenhower
    George S. Patton
    17,000 veterans
    26,000 others 500 infantry
    500 cavalry
    6 battle tanks
    800 police
    Casualties and losses
    4 dead; 1,017 injured At least 69 police injured

    The Bonus Army was the popular name of an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers—17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups—who gathered in Washington, D.C., in the spring and summer of 1932 to demand immediate cash-payment redemption of their service certificates. Its organizers called it the Bonus Expeditionary Force to echo the name of World War I’s American Expeditionary Force, while the media called it the Bonus March. It was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant.

    Many of the war veterans had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression. The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had awarded them bonuses in the form of certificates they could not redeem until 1945. Each service certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier’s promised payment plus compound interest. The principal demand of the Bonus Army was the immediate cash payment of their certificates.

    Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time, visited their camp to back the effort and encourage them.[1] On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans’ campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

    A second, smaller Bonus March in 1933 at the start of the Roosevelt Administration was defused with promises instead of military action. In 1936, Congress overrode President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s veto to pay the veterans their bonus years early.

  28. Fact Checker
    November 15, 2011 at 10:47 am

    High Traitor said:
    November 15, 2011 at 9:27 am

    “This has nothing to do with protesting and everything to do with anarchy.”

    Yeah, the British barfed the same BS in the 1770’s.

  29. What Now
    November 15, 2011 at 11:30 am

    Now Read This! @ 10:30:
    Thank you for postung the info on the bonus marchers.
    My grandparents were part of that.
    Having honorably served in the U.S. “colored battalion” (he was native american) he and his comrades were given 1/2 the training of caucasians and deposited directly at the front.
    This battalion was on of the few that the american red cross charged for all services except emergency medical services (coffee, sanwiches,blankets.)
    Needing to prove their meddle, this same battalion was awarded a disproportionate amount of purple hearts but few other medals.
    That wouldn’t have fit the eugenics driven philosophies being bantered about by the progressives and conservatives of both major parties.

    McArthur’s decision to ignore Hoover’s orders NOT to fire on the crowd or rough them up not only swung public opinion againsn’t the militray and the power elite, it was used as a rallying cry and talking point for labor solidarity and other social issues all the way up to WWII.

    In the 1990’s, a conservative economist stated that in examining the historical record, he’d concluded that has long as the elite have grandchildren the world will have cyclical economic collapses and wars.
    I believe he is right.

    The power elite in the western world (and asia) has a complex mindset that is so virulently detached from reality that it can easily be deemed “pathological” by social psychiatrists.

  30. anonymous
    November 15, 2011 at 11:40 am

    “The power elite in the western world (and asia) has a complex mindset that is so virulently detached from reality that it can easily be deemed “pathological” by social psychiatrists.”

    …and their apples never fall far from their tree.

  31. November 15, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    (Plain Jane)That’s the real problem with most Americans today, according to Mayor Michael Bloomberg. they’re clueless when it comes to such things as “public safety.” Only the Elite Oligarchy, their corrupt politicians who dictate and control the current police state are the only one’s with “rights.” “Public Safety” as they choose to define it according to circumstance trumps all law and any make-believe “rights” left over. So, who you going to vote for in the next election?

  32. Anonymous
    November 15, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    Describe the “power elite”.

  33. Dan
    November 15, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    Thanks, WhatNow 11:30

    The Bonus Marchers and the role the military played
    against their own,
    should not be forgotten.

  34. What Now
    November 15, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    I thought that this was an interesting assesment.
    Overly optimistic but interesting none the less.


  35. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Interesting post about the Bonus March. I had forgotten that Major General Smedley Butler was involved. His story is a fascinating example of an enthusiastic, highly effective military man, who, over time, came to loathe the oppressive system that he had been made part of, and upon his retirement, transformed himself into a devastatingly effective critic of military imperialism.

    For the nation’s most decorated U.S. Marine of all time to announce that he had concluded that “War is a Racket,” and then go on to decribe the workings of that racket in vivid detail, was something that capured the imagination of millions of Americans, including lots of veterans of the many wars of the 20th and now the 21st, centures.

    Smedley Darlington Butler[1] (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, an outspoken critic of U.S. military adventurism, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.


    To me, his story demonstrates that even someone who has been an enthusiastic participant in terrible acts ordered by the Powers that Be, may still have the capacity not just to regret what has been done, but to actually transform himself into a formidable adversary to those same Powers.

    Needless to say, I never heard one word about Butler in my high school history classes. Nope, like a lot of the missing pieces that high school history left out, I first learned about it in Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States.” Perhaps not coincidentally, Zinn was himelf a veteran of WWII, which he had enthusiatically participated in as a bombadier, eager to stop fascism in its tracks. Like Butler, Zinn does not condemn soldiers, but rather those leaders who initiate wars of aggression in the service of their economic/political/ideological goals.

  36. jr
    November 15, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    Readers might wist to visit http://www.occupysac.com and hear the new song “We are the Many” by Makana.

  37. Plain Jane
    November 15, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Wasn’t it Smedley Butler who testified before congress about the fascist coup he was asked to lead to overthrow FDR?

  38. Plain Jane
    November 15, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    That is a wonderful song, Jr. Makana may have found Dylan’s missing muse, and he has a really nice voice too.

  39. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    That’s right P.J., and in fact…

    The McCormack-Dickstein Committee confirmed some of Butler’s accusations in its final report. “In the last few weeks of the committee’s official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country…There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.”


  40. Plain Jane
    November 15, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    It must have been fascist commie unionists, Tra. Rich industrialists love democracy.

  41. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    The plotters were apparently serious enough that they approached more than one influential veteran about taking a leadership role in their planned coup…

    From footnote #50 in the Wikipedia article:

    “But James E. Van Zandt, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and subsequently a Republican congressman, corroborated Butler’s story and said that he, too, had been approached by “agents of Wall Street.” “Zandt had been called immediately after the August 22 meeting with MacGuire by Butler and warned that…he was going to be approached by the coup plotters for his support at an upcoming VFW convention. He said that, just as Butler had warned, he had been approached “by agents of Wall Street” who tried to enlist him in their plot.””Says Butler Described. Offer.”. The New York Times: 3. 1934-11-23

  42. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    Meanwhile, here in the present day, the “economic playing field” has become so skewed in favor of the rich that even Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, is backing legislation aimed at preventing millionaires from dodging taxes and sucking up public subsidies:

    in a new report — titled “Subsidizing the Rich and Famous” — Coburn makes an argument for closing loopholes for millionaires. “From tax write-offs for gambling losses, vacation homes, and luxury yachts to subsidies for their ranches and estates, the government is subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich and famous,” Coburn writes in the report. “This welfare for the well-off — costing billions of dollars a year — is being paid for with the taxes of the less fortunate, many who are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and IOUs to be paid off by future generations.”

    In total, Coburn’s report claims that millionaires receive $30 billion in benefits from tax giveaways and federal grant programs every year. Almost 1,500 millionaires didn’t pay income tax in 2009, according to the report…

    If you’re a millionaire farmer, you don’t need government farm subsidies. Those farm program payouts, Coburn argues, were intended to encourage low-income farmers, and millionaires don’t need that encouragement…


    But, but, but aren’t those millionaires, by definition, supposed to be “the job creators?” I thought showering them with tax breaks and direct subsidies was supposed to “create jobs.” Hmmm… seems like the narrative does seem to be changing.

    When even a conservative Republican from Oklahoma has begun to speak out against millionaire moochers, you know the country must be beginning to wake up.

  43. Plain Jane
    November 15, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    That’s why el Rushbo is getting so upset. It’s hard to keep the sheeple on message when their elected leaders stray.

  44. High Finance
    November 15, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    Politicians of all stripes like to pander to class envy. The number of “millionaires dodging taxes” are no more nor no less than upper or lower middle class who do the same.

    Gambling losses are only deductible against gambling winnings. Vacation homes can only write off the mortgage interest and property taxes and many middle class people have them as well. “Luxury” yachts have limited writeoffs and a tiny number of people use them.

    How do they define “millionaire”? Is it one million in income or one million in assets. Or is it, as Clinton & Gore defined it, people who make more than $250,000 per year because, after four years, they have made $1 million dollars.

    Once again, for the hard of hearing or thinking, the upper 1% paid something like 38% of all income taxes paid.

    Class envy, wealth envy, makes you ugly.

  45. Ben
    November 15, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    Jane, if rich industrialists love democracy, I guess you oppose it. What would your suggest as a replacement?

  46. Plain Jane
    November 15, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Sarcasm is hard to portray in text, Ben, but in this context you might have understood it. It was rich industrialists who were conspiracy for a fascist coup to overthrow FDR.

  47. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 3:54 pm


    “Envy” implies wanting to be like the person being envied. That might be true for some, but I think for most, “resentment” would be a more accurate term.

    And yes, resentment can look “ugly,’ or at least it can be portrayed that way… but so what? Sometimes resentment is justified, and sometimes it’s part of the mix of motivations that propels people to seek a more just situation.

    The 1,500 millionaires who paid zero federal income taxes last year may be no greater a proportion than the number of $30,000 a year taxpayers who paid no income taxes, but it shouldn’t be hard to understand why, to most people, it’s simply much more galling that someone who has benefitted so greatly from the opportunites they’ve had in this country, would respond to this good fortune by giving back as little as possible.

    So I’ll gladly admit that I resent that kind of selfishness, though I don’t envy those millionaire moochers in the sense that I would never, ever want to be like them.

  48. Plain Jane
    November 15, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    And HiFi proves that you can’t teach an old frightwinger new tricks. No matter how many times it is stated and supported with evidence that wealth imbalance is dangerous for economies and democracies, he just goes circles back to the class envy BS. When you increase your income and cut those of the working class to the point where they don’t owe any taxes, it’s really rude to then complain about paying the lowest tax rates on the highest incomes in history as you crash the economy and throw millions more out of work.

  49. Stutter
    November 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    And Hi Fi just repeats the same old Hannity talking point, “the 1% pay 38% of income taxes”

    OK Hi Fi what percentage of ALL taxes do they pay? Do you know the answer?

  50. Ben
    November 15, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    I am having a hard time with a simplified statement like x number of people who are “millionaires” did not pay taxes. I would like some specific example. If someone lost $2M in 09 and made $1M in 10 then they would not pay taxes because of a loss carry forward. If you sold an investment at a loss, you would not pay taxes. So let us have some examples rather than some general categorical statement. As far as low rates, if you have a capital gain, you pay at a lower rate than regular income. If you hold a property for many years and sell it at a gain, it is only fair to not pay the same tax rate as if you just made the same money as salary.
    As an employer, we try to pay as much as we can to keep good employees and to help them get ahead.

  51. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    Why should there be a loss carry forward at all?

  52. High Finance
    November 15, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    Tra, it is that very envy that triggers the “resentment”. But do we change the tax law for hundreds of thousands of people because 1,500 paid no tax ?

    Which begs the question, why did those 1,500 people pay no tax ? That is the unasked and unanswered question by the media. Did they abuse the spirit of the tax law by sheltering income “off shore”? Or are there legitimate reasons like loss carryforwards or unused credits ? The same carryforwards & credits that also wipe out the tax for tens of thousands of middle income taxpayers every year.

    But even if the 1,500 were all tax cheats why is the resentment directed towards all millionaires instead of just the 1,500 ? There are many hundreds of thasands of middle class taxpayers who cheat. Why no resentment is expressed against them ?

  53. High Finance
    November 15, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    Don’t you believe in fairness Neem Oil ?

  54. Plain Jane
    November 15, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    Until there are more good employees looking for work than jobs available, Ben. Then those good employees become a cheap commodity and the wage and benefit cuts start. 100% of employers don’t do this, but too many do. Why else did the Bush tax cuts result in a shift of income from the working classes to those at the top while benefits were cut and there were fewer jobs? You can’t deny the data.

  55. Ben
    November 15, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    Neem, If you had an imcome of $25,000 and you had $40,000 in medical bills in one year, should you pay your full taxes on the $25,000 next year? How unfair. That is why you have loss carry forward. If your business lost money for the past 5 years and made some money this year, should you ignore the past losses and pay full frieght? Not fair. This is why there is this option.

  56. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    It seems to me that the insistence on using the term “class envy” just reflects the need on the part of the wealthy to reassure themselves that they are secretly admired and respected even by their critics.

    “People resent you” just means they’re angry at you, it’s an open, unresolved, and potentially frightening situation — whereas “people are envious of you” encompasses and explains that resentment, resolving the uncertainty of the situation and reinforcing your sense of superiority.

  57. Ben
    November 15, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    Jane, we could save a significant amount of money by having new employees, and we would NEVER do that. We are loyal to our employees and I hope they are loyal to us and we pay as much as we can and better than most that have a like job. Yes I know employers that hire new minimum wage workers, but the overall cost of this is great, experience is important and it takes a year to gain experience to be an effective employee.

  58. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    It is only fair if your income comes from non-work like collecting dividend checks.

    If I am unemployed for a year and have no income, why can’t I as an individual have a loss carry forward for a year and pay no individual income taxes when I find a job?

    That is fair.

  59. Angel
    November 15, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    It’s great to see that our city hall lawn has been cleared of vermin. It’s especially gratifying to see the bums marched off to jail.

    Next up: Big Pot in SoHum. Think you are too big and rich to fall? Think again scumbags.

  60. League of Sanity
    November 15, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    City hall? ^^^^^^^^^ MORON

  61. Plain Jane
    November 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    If only all employers were like you, Ben.

  62. Ben
    November 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Neem, If you had expenses, you would carry forward the loss. I do not see why the source of the income, like dividends, should matter.

  63. Plain Jane
    November 15, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    Fascist wannabe thugs aren’t prized for their brains but their lack of them, League.

  64. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Please tell me on my 1040 EZ where I can carry forward my “expenses.”

  65. Ben
    November 15, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    You can not use 1040 EZ.

  66. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    Well there is a problem then isn’t there? I guess it does matter what the source of the income is. Why can you carry forward losses on investments but not losses on wages?

    I mean Ben, just as a matter of “fairness.”

  67. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    Mr. High Finance are you a referee or something? What do you mean by “fairness?” Does it mention loss carry forwards in the Old Testament? Are loss carry forwards guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? Are loss carry forwards one of humankinds “Inalienable Rights?”

    What is the source for your belief that tax loss carry forwards are “fair?”

  68. Thorstein Veblen
    November 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    “Stutter says:
    November 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    And Hi Fi just repeats the same old Hannity talking point, “the 1% pay 38% of income taxes”

    OK Hi Fi what percentage of ALL taxes do they pay? Do you know the answer?”

    Another question; what % of income do the 1% receive?

  69. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    Anyone who wants to know more about the numbers and the methodology used in the report that Sen. Coburn presented can look at the full report here:

    Again, Coburn is a conservative Republican U.S. Senator from Oklahoma, not exactly the stereotype of someone suffering from “class envy” or desiring “class warfare.”

  70. Ben
    November 15, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    An investment means you spent income on it, so if you sell it for less, then that is a loss. If you did not invest, then you do not have a loss.

  71. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    No. It costs money to keep me running. I need food, shelter and clothing and transportation. That costs money. All my income is in wages. If I undergo a significant period of unemployment then I am suffering a loss on my investment. I should be able to carry forward that loss.

    I can’t afford to buy a business like yours so I cannot access this very nice tax benefit like you do. I think in fairness it should be extended to me, or yours should be eliminated.

  72. Ben
    November 15, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    It is better to have income than a loss. A business does not have an “unemployment benefit” as you do. So would you give up any unemployment benefit for a tax write off?

  73. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    Will you be willing to give up any loss carry forward older than 26 weeks and larger than 50% of your average business income? We are just talking fairness, right?

  74. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    If Ben is the same Ben who, along with his wife, co-owns a long-established store located on Central Avenue in McKinleyville, I can confirm that he and his wife have a reputation for being good employers, with numerous longtime employees and little turnover.

    And their reward for cultivating long-term employment, rather than going for a constant churn of newer, cheaper employees, is that their long-time employees are very competent and knowledgeable. In their particular business, people are often looking for advice in addition to the products themselves, so well-informed, long-term employees are a real plus to the customer, and thus to the business as a whole.

    Unfortunately, in other types of retail businesses, where little specialized knowledge is required, seasoned employees are not considered valuable enough to outweigh the savings that can be achieved with a short-term “churn and burn” approach to staffing.

  75. Ben
    November 15, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    I am not willing to give up loss carry forward for a program that does not exist. A business has no income insurance as a government benefit.

  76. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    The tax loss carry forward is a tax benefit Ben. It is a line in the tax code. It can be removed.

    Without the tax loss carry forward we would actually have a free market economy and not a bunch of businesses on the dole. The free market is all about risk, right? You businessmen take yours risks with your money and that justifies the profit, or so the tale is told. So if the government gives you this tax benefit where is the risk?

  77. which supervisors voted to harrass protesters?
    November 15, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    If all these idiots complaing about the protest would get back to complaining about somebody’s other half of the government that the protesters are also complaining about, something good would come of the combined effort.

  78. Ben
    November 15, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    What is fair is a long term view of investment and risk. If everything is focused into an arbitrary 365 days, then it is not truly a free economy and it would cause people to withhold investment. The tax benefit is minor because if you have significant losses, you are done.

  79. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    Well if it is minor why not get rid of it?

    Don’t get me wrong I am not arguing in favor of taking away your benefit I am just arguing in favor of extending it to me and my wage only income.

    In the interest of fairness.

  80. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    Neem Oil,

    I think you may be firing at the wrong target. Look at it this way…no actual profit has been made until the previous losses have been overcome. I’m not sure I want to tax people on profits they haven’t yet made.

    I do think we need to increase taxes at the top end of the inome pyramid. But I don’t think the issue of allowing losses from one year to be carried over and deducted from profits the next year is where the problem lies.

  81. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    I am not firing at anyone I am having a discussion about tax policy. I don’t think Ben is offended are you Ben?

  82. November 15, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    5:19 Maybe you could re-phrase that, for us slower folk.

  83. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    Sorry, Neem Oil, I posted my 5:27 comment before I saw your 5:26 comment.

    I’m not 100% clear on what it is that you’re advocating. Are you saying that individuals should be able to declare “losses” anytime their income declines, and then add up all these losses until their income increases again, and then deduct the “losses” from their income when calculating their personal income taxes? Or something along those lines? Or did I misunderstand you entirely?

  84. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Let me say that Ben sounds like a decent employer to me. I am just making the point that there is nothing in the tax code that was handed down to Moses and inscribed in stone by God.

    Tax loss carry forwards are not sacred. Yes they may be useful but that does not mean that they are “fair.” If you are going to say they are “fair” then I think you must provide evidence to support that assertion.

  85. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    Neem Oil,

    By “firing at the wrong target” I didn’t mean that I thought you were unfairly targeting Ben or that I thought he would or should be offended, I just meant that I’m not sure that the issue of losses being carried forward and deducted from profits is the right “target.”

  86. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Yes TRA I think you are misunderstanding. I am making the point that wage income must be treated the same as any other income at the minimum if we are to have any pretense of fairness in the tax code. The situation right now is upside down, with dividend and capital gains taxed at a much lower rate than wage income.

  87. which supervisors voted to harrass protesters?
    November 15, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    I’ll do you one better than saying the top 1% needs to be taxed more, tra. They’re a bunch of liars and cheats. We, the people, have to spend a ton of time and money going to school to learn “economic theory” wherease there’s no such practice at the top. When the wealthiest people in this country know the “third-party” government is going to do them favors like wipe away hundreds of trillions of dollars in debt several times per decade, it’s time for the genuinely righteous among all civil government to stand up and be counted.

    They take money away, we see it in the form of constant loss of money and services. They still make enough money to live like the wealthy apathists they are. The national chain of command has headquarters in Humboldt. The people working for the government need to stand up and be counted, NOW.

  88. Rental
    November 15, 2011 at 6:00 pm



    Jack Mirkinson reports on the Huffington Post:

    “UPDATE: The Society Of Professional Journalists has condemned the arrests of reporters carried out by the New York Police Department during their raid of the Occupy Wall Street encampment.

    “In a statement on Tuesday, the group noted that at least six journalists had been arrested, and called ‘for all charges against these journalists to be dropped and for greater care by police to avoid arresting or otherwise obstructing journalists who are simply and clearly doing their jobs.’ It also stressed that ‘the journalists were either wearing press credentials or explained to police that they were reporters covering the protests,’ and argued, ‘they were clearly exercising the constitutional right of a free press…it is clear now that many journalists have been erroneously arrested without cause.’

    “The New York Press club also condemned the Bloomberg administration for its apparent efforts to block journalists from witnessing the raid. The club criticized what it said ‘would seem to be a strategic decision to cloak potentially volatile police activity from the public.’

    “ORIGINAL STORY: The surprise raid on the Occupy Wall Street encampment included an aggressive, sometimes violent approach to the journalists covering the event.

    “In the early hours of Tuesday morning, the NYPD moved into Zucotti Park and forcibly cleared it of the encampment that had been there for nearly two months. Naturally, journalists flocked to Lower Manhattan to witness what was going on. When they got there, though, most of them were barred from getting too close.

    “Reporter after reporter — many using the hashtag “#mediablackout” — tweeted through the night, saying that police had either blocked them from seeing what was happening or had acted violently towards them. Some correspondents were also among the scores of people arrested by police.

    “At his press conference about the raid on Tuesday morning, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said journalists were barred from covering the raid ‘to protect members of the press,’ and ‘to prevent a situation from getting worse.’

  89. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    Neem Oil,

    Well I agree with you that the capital gains tax ought to be raised so that people who are making money on investments don’t end up paying a lower tax rate than people who are paying taxes on wage and salary income. Heck, even Warren Buffet agrees that
    he shouldn’t get to pay a lower tax rate on his millions in investment income than his secretary has to pay on her salary.

    I’m just a bit confused about the issue of business losses from past years being carried forward and deducted from profits in a future year. If I am understanding you correctly, you were suggesting that in the interest of fairness individuals should have the same ability as businesses to carry losses forward, but I’m not sure quite what that would look like in practice; hence my 5:34 query. Perhaps you could elaborate?

  90. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    We, the people, have to spend a ton of time and money going to school to learn “economic theory” wherease there’s no such practice at the top.

    I beg to differ. Many of the elite must toil away for years in the MBA mills of our majory universities, in order to learn how best to channel wealth, accumulate it, and shield it from taxation, while at the same time justifying their right — indeed their obligation to hoard as much as possible.

    Perhaps the most famous example of such an instition is the venerable Yale School of Managemen, which author Kurt Vonnegut may have summed up best when he referred to it as “Plantation Owner’s Tech.”

  91. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 6:14 pm


    Suppose I work for wages, say about $40,000 per year. If I get laid off I still must pay for my barest expenses let’s say $20,000 per year. If I am unemployed for two years and then get another $40,000 per year job then I should be able to carry forward my $40,000 losses and pay no tax for the first year of my re-employment. That gives my income the same fair treatment that the business owner gets. My $20,000 per year living expense is a “loss” if it does not produce any income for me.

  92. which supervisors voted to harrass protesters?
    November 15, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    “I beg to differ. Many of the elite must toil away for years in the MBA mills of our majory universities, in order to learn how best to channel wealth, accumulate it, and shield it from taxation, while at the same time justifying their right — indeed their obligation to hoard as much as possible.”

    Think within the literal confines of the situation. There’s only so many people making certian decisions, and only so many people with so much money. Born into money, you get to keep your money soze long as you scratch the backs of everybody born into money with you. No money, you gotta buy into their institutions to study “economic theory” on the tiny chance of joining them, if there’s an empty seat at their round table.

    No theory involved when hundreds of trillions of dollars in THEIR LOSS is wiped clean, and shoved onto US…over and over and over again. They knew it was going to happen a long time ago, they are liars and cheats in positions of extreme power. It’s a reality that can’t be ignored.

  93. Anonymous
    November 15, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    the tax code is not fair.
    it is not fair to take money from one person and give it to another, but that is precisely what happens. it is set up so elected officials can make promises to their constituents. President Obama is trying to get a bunch of votes by telling poor people he will take money from the rich and give it to them. Whoever runs against him will try to get votes by telling people he will protect their money from Obama. if you want to make a change, call a congressman and donate $5,000 to their campaign.

  94. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    So we agree that tax loss carry forwards are not fair?

  95. The Gatest Generation
    November 15, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    Only $5,000 to bribe a congressman? Jeez it takes $30,000 just to bribe a city council!

  96. anonymous
    November 15, 2011 at 9:05 pm

    There is a valid reason that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate Tra and it has nothing to do with giving the “rich” an unfair tax cut. The reason was to encourage investment.

    Agree with it or not (and I am not sure it is really worth it) but there are sound economic reasons to give the tax break.

    Neem, the tax loss carryforwards are available to rich and the middle class alike. Start a business yourself and then maybe you would have more sympathy for the risks that all business owners take every year.

  97. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    Umm that is a justification for tax loss carry forwards but it is not proven to be effective in stimulating investment. And since not everyone can do it with their income it certainly isn’t “fair.” Maybe you missed the part where I said I file a 1040 EZ so starting a business is impossible for me, along with 30 or 40 other million people.

    So where is the risk if the government subsidizes your tax bill on loss carry forwards? Aren’t you on the dole?

  98. tra
    November 15, 2011 at 9:40 pm

    Neem Oil,

    See, that’s the part I’m not quite getting. Once your gains have actually surpassed your earlier losses, then you’re actually making a profit, and you’re taxed on that profit (in some cases not enough, in my opinion, but that’s another issue).

    But if you lost money for a couple of years and then make money one year, but your recent gains haven’t overcome your earlier losses and so you haven’t profited yet, you’re not taxed on the nonexistent profits? How’s that a subsidy or being “on the dole.”

  99. Neem Oil
    November 15, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    The point, TRA, is that as an individual I don’t have the opportunity to do what the business person does. I can’t carry forward my losses. When I get back on my feet I have to pay the full tax. The business person doesn’t. That is not fair.

    It is a subsidy because as a result of the loss carry forward, the business person pays less in taxes. Since he pays less in taxes then government services must either be cut or taxes must be raised on you and I.

    It is a subsidy but I am calling it the dole because that is what some people call unemployment benefits or social security. So I call unfair tax subsidies for business the dole as well.

  100. Anonymous
    November 16, 2011 at 2:27 am

    The difference is the business owner is not taking personal expenses as part of their losses. You can’t go buy groceries and pay your p g & e bill at your house and call that an expense or use it to create a loss. It is fair because if you and the business both had a $50,000 income, you would both pay tax on that. For your idea of fair to work, you will have everybody writing off their personal expenses as business losses.

    You can start a business tomorrow if you want to and you will be able to write off your losses. They will be limited to your investment though and for you to have a tax loss, it will have to exceed all of your w2 income too unless you incorporate. In that case your corporation could have a loss but you will not see any personal benefit as any wages paid to yourself will be subject to taxes.

  101. High Finance
    November 16, 2011 at 10:03 am

    What you are advocating Neem, is that you can deduct your PERSONAL expenses against future income and that is not what the business owners are doing.

    Just as 2.27am says, the business owners are deducting business losses and not personal expenses.

  102. Middle Class
    November 16, 2011 at 10:53 am

    anonymous said:
    November 15, 2011 at 9:05 pm

    “Agree with it or not (and I am not sure it is really worth it) but there are sound economic reasons to give the tax break.”

    Sure, give me a tax break instead of taxing the sh*! out of me to fund Global Military Conquest and Bankster Bailouts. I’ll spend that money right here in America. How’s that for “sound economic reasons to give the tax break”?

  103. Jack Sherman
    November 16, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Loss Carry Forward was a great job-creating idea to motivate business formation by extending the risk during the formative years when most businesses fail.

    However, like most other corrupted tax laws authored by the benefactors, and passed by a multi-millionaire Congress, it became exploited by large and small businesses alike, to launder personal or subsidiary expenses, as part of the Shell and Pea game largely benefiting the Bigs.

    The delusion that everyone can have their hand in the cookie jar enables our corrupt and unequal tax codes to persist.

    I had no problem with tax codes benefiting American business, or even Ronald Reagan’s early bailouts of General Motors….until industry began using their public welfare to offshore factories to child-laborers, legally shelter income on remote islands, and reduce annual corporate tax investment in America to zero.

    For the top 147 multinationals holding controlling shares in the world economy today, using multi-billions in public wealth to battle citizen’s world-wide “Occupy” protests is merely another public subsidy they’ve “earned” to conceal a rigged game that maintains their stability.

  104. Anonymous
    November 16, 2011 at 6:41 pm
  105. tra
    November 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    6:41’s post reminds me of Silvio Berlusconi’s answer to the question “are you faithful to your wife?”

    His answer: “Very often, I am.”

  106. Anonymous
    November 18, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    some lost money tra. you don’t pay when you don’t make money. if you listen to the rhetoric and don’t do any reading the “99%” will have you believing none of these big corporations are paying anything when the fact is most of them are paying billions and at rates of 25% – 40%.

  107. Honest John
    November 18, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    How much income tax did Rob Arkley pay last year?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s