His name is Jason Codner, 42, charged with a public order offence and criminal damage and is due to appear in court on July 30th. Apparently he became upset after learning he wasn't entitled to a certain refund.

Chase is only doing good because they havent been caught yet... and they ended the no-min balance free checking WAMU had in place. Same with Bank of America.

I seriously had bank of america drain my $25.00 account I opened in 2008, telling me they charged a fee one year after the account was opened. Only they decided four months ago. When I went to the bank, they said if I didnt pay another $25.00 in overdraft because they were charging me because they already took my cash, I would be sent to collections. So bank of america stole $50 dollars directly from me, not to mention all the other money they must steal. Run out? Print more, steal more. Buy goods and services and real estate that can't be refunded or liquidated, rinse, repeat.

Fucking assholes.

There was no help for me. I can afford the loss, I'm too smart to know nothing will ever happen to get my money back, and im too dumb to keep track of my money so i put it in a bank and they stole it. I really am not too good at life.


Maybe in the end, there can be only one. And then we can all stfu or gtfo! it would be easier than pretending there was a solution.


ps I'm a white male aged 18-34 with a high 700's credit score and no outstanding debts... i had money to spare... but that doesn't mean the bank can steal it... i could have used it for something too, and it was mine. wahhhhh!!!


geez i sound almost as bad as the corporate babys and other crooks who are sad they can't steal so easily. wahhhh!!! i have to work to live in a country where im not as likely to be raped for an AIDS cure or/and beheaded for my religion!!! communism!!! black people!!!

I watched that entire thing and there was no flashing, much less banging! I want a refund!

No refunds.

So we have a Videosift guy who is whining about having to pay 35% on his wages but Mitt only had to pay 13.9% on his capital gains. Mitt's lower rate has nothing to do with him being 'better' or anything of the sort. It is entirely because Mitt's wealth is earned in an entirely different way.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker Spoken like someone who gets a tax refund in April instead of having to write a big check.

No fucking shit it was taxed differently because he earned it in a different way. That's the core of the dispute: most taxpayers want all types of income taxed the same way.

And it wasn't always this way. The capital gains rate was dropped in '97 from 28% to 20%, and Bush pushed it down to 15% with his devastating (because it wiped out the surpluses we had) tax cut.

As to your rationale:

This is because capital gains investments are (A) risky and (B) directly benefit the business sector.

Anybody in the workforce can say the same. Having a job is highly risky, especially these days. And what job doesn't directly benefit the business sector? Even the guy scrubbing the company restroom is adding value.

Your second comment was about his charitable contributions. There is no way I could reduce my tax to 13.9% by giving 15% of my money to charity. If I could, I would. And half of Romney's charity was to an institution he's an insider of, the Mormon Church. I don't mind considering church donations as charity, but clearly Romney is not some ordinary parishioner giving to his church. He was an elder of that institution and still has a large influence.

>> ^renatojj:

@.


Np, glad you liked them. I'm not saying there is only one account of what went down, I'm saying that it is fact that America was most prosperous when taxes were the highest. You don't need to be a historian or theorizer to use Google and check that for yourself.

Your quick Google search brung up an article that deals only in theory, and the argument they use is that people that are taxed 0% are more motivated than people that are taxed 100% - so that the imperitive becomes to cover Govt. expenses while keeping the taxes as low as possible to maintain motivation. That makes perfect logical sense and doesn't disagree with the facts I bought to the table, that America has been most prosperous during periods of high taxation, it simply proves that low is subjective. Taxing someone who earns $10,000 50% of their income means they take home a tiny amount of money, the same tax rate on a billionaire means they still take home five hundred million dollars, more than enough don't you think? If all income was related to productivity then my argument would be different, but quite simply it's not. Look at derivatives trading or inheritence funds as a couple of examples.

Fixing tax rates is also just the beginning, there needs to be a complete overhaul of your taxation system, there is plenty of information out there that details how dozens of your fortune 500 companies are paying no tax at all (e.g. GE and Boeing), Pepco Holdings Inc had a negative 57.6% tax rate for 2010 according to this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A261C20111103

So not only are the tax rates poorly thought out, the tax system allows companies that rake in billions in profits ways by which to avoid paying any tax at all (and even get refunds).

The same goes for individuals as well, Mitt Romney, who made over twenty million in 2010, and has at least thirty million stashed in over 138 investment funds in the Caimans paid close to 15% tax in that same year. That's the same tax rate that someone earning $10,000 would have to pay.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-parks-millions-offshore-tax-haven/story?id=15378566#.Tx-lKm_9PUd

Is he using this additional money he's making from not paying his taxes for productive purposes? It would appear not... His motive is profit, and to that end he's closed plants, cut employee wages, laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries, all while he and his partners have made tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, while the companies he's invested in have often ended up going bankrupt:
http://www.romneygekko.com/mitt/

So my point is that it's a pipedream to think that lower taxes on the rich has only one effect, to make them more productive, it also carries with it a myriad of negative consequences as I've illustrated, the worst one being lobbying, which is rampant in your country. In terms of Chile, you say that all education there is state funded? Have a look at this report and you will see that the total investment in tertiary education Chile makes is probably close to about half a percent of their GDP, which is indeed lower than any other country surveyed, they are also at the very bottom of the list when it comes to actual dollars invested in public education. Meanwhile the cost of education for students is the highest of any OECD country.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/48/37864432.pdf

The reasons for that come full circle back to your economic theories. Have you heard of Augusto Pinochet? America installed him as the dictator of Chile after the CIA organised a successful air strike on the palace of the existing democratically elected leader - Allende, which resulted in his death. It's well known that Pinochet relied on the Chicago boys for economic policy, who in turn were trained by Milton Friedman. Friedman was ... the major free-market economist of his time, and it's these exact same policies that still linger around today in the education system thanks to Patricio Aylwin and others. It's clear evidence that your model has flaws, and it's also clear who benefits the most from it.

Really, the guy could have simply apologized for the product delay, and when asked, gave the guy his $10 refund. Quick, easy, and everything would have been over. One of the pains of working retail is how far you have to bend over to even the most unreasonable people, the guy who bought the Avenger was being more than reasonable up to that point.
I mean I think the customer would understand things being on the slow boat from China...
The place I used to work for had slow boat from China syndrome from time to time. A factory worker left a window open once and all the boxes got wet so they had to repack everything... The company had a very bad habit of advertising stuff in USA Today, the Parade section of the paper and in newspapers in general that they haven't even ordered yet, and if they didn't get enough orders they would send an FTC Notice telling the customer "Due to circumstances beyond our control, the product you ordered is currently unavailable and we have cancelled your order. We'll let you know when it becomes available again." We sent FTC Notices out all the time... Despite all the unethical things they did (the selling of stuff they didn't even order themselves yet isn't even a chip on the tip of a big iceberg), they at least treated the customers with more respect than this guy did.

Top 1% pays 22.7% of Federal taxes and have 17% of the income. The bottom 90% pay 47.8% with 59.8% of all income. Those numbers are based on verifiable fact

So? Rejigger and you can say, "The bottom 75% pay 32% of the taxes with 45.7% of all income. Any way you slice it, the 'wealthy' are paying the lion's share of the taxes, with a smaller percentage of the nation's total wealth. The rich are paying their fair share and then some.

It has always been that way and I defy you to find a time and place in history when things worked differently

First things first. Your entire premise is wrong. The Bush tax cuts were not "Tax cuts for the rich". They were tax cust for EVERYONE. It is only the neoliberal spin echo-chamber, zombie brains of leftists that calls them 'tax cuts for the rich'. Any sensible, fair analysis proves conclusively that the 'rich' ended up paying an even HIGHER percentage of the tax burden after the Bush cuts. THe only way any person can possibly believe they were 'for the rich' is if they turn their brains off, become absolute simpletons, and look ONLY at the total dollars rather than at the whole picture of what happened.

You guys on the left are going to have to face some reality at some point. Any tax 'cut' is going to overwhelmingly favor 'the rich' because they are the ones paying the taxes. The poor and middle class are either paying zero taxes, or get a tax refund every year.

You neolibs aren't targeting the 'rich'. You are targeting the upper-middle class. Yeah - REAL "progessive" of you jerks to go along with Obama's marxist rhetoric and try to kneecap folks that earn a piddly 200,000 a year. Oooo - yeah - those are "rich guys" who "aren't paying their fair share". You guys are a bunch of jackhats, you know that? Those 200K a year guys are small business owners who live paycheck to paycheck just as much as the poor do.

And Obama and Buffet are total @$$es for lying to the entire country and trying to pass off capital gains as if it was the same thing as income. Really, just goes to show how much neolibs have to warp reality in order to try to sucker the stupid and the intellectually weak. It is to Videosift's complete and utter shame that it has such high percentage of dupes who are so easily manipulated by lies and class warfare rhetoric.

Yep, pretty common. Even if you post to the PayPal address, you're hardly better off, buyers generally have everything in their favour. He can get those eBay fees refunded (PayPal will be harder) but it takes admittedly more time than it's worth and isn't guaranteed, sometimes you get a good service rep, other times you don't.

That's just eBay, it ain't a perfect system but when you want to sell something quick...it's hard to find anything else.

>> ^geo321:

This new poll doesn't seem to be viewable on the sifttalk page either. http://videosift.com/poll/What-do-you-think-of-DeFacto-Avatar-Day >> ^lucky760:
Weird. Hard to know what happened now that it's showing up as it's supposed to.



Thanks for linking. All fixed!

This new poll doesn't seem to be viewable on the sifttalk page either. http://videosift.com/poll/What-do-you-think-of-DeFacto-Avatar-Day >> ^lucky760:

Weird. Hard to know what happened now that it's showing up as it's supposed to.

>> ^Stingray:

When was this poll posted? I just saw it now.


Me too -- WTF? I know I've checked sift talk at least a few times in the last few days. @dag, @lucky760, wha happened?

@Stingray

" Voting for this poll ended in a tie between I save/store/collect bottles or cans for a $ refund and I just recycle them for no $."

Siftbot is a Sticky bitch for slippery slopes. It has spoken.

** and I just now only seen the poll after discarding my post about youtube. That's why I said above I had lost the poll in the ether, I have no clue why it was not in sift talk for most to see, It was however on the side panel on the front page, that's how I found it.

Voting for this poll ended in a tie between I save/store/collect bottles or cans for a $ refund and I just recycle them for no $.