http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/lea...hist/6448/

The link at the bottom goes here: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/3-y...ists/6467/
From the second article:

I want to add here, that the mainstream left and right have each been complicit in this, with the anarchist "dirty word" being used by the right to describe Occupy Wallstreet (which is still going on, by the way) and with people like the Liberal Library using "anarchistic" to describe the right wing's opposition to secular (instead of religious or other tyrannical) forms of government.  Of course anarchism is opposition to tyrannical government, whether religious or secular, so someone who wants to impose a secular or religious tyranny in place of the current government is by definition not an anarchist.  

Occupy wallstreet are in no way anarchists, for one thing an anarchist wouldn't demand the government take more money from people.

Oh, and if someone's accused of destroying government property then i'd argue that the presence of anarchist beliefs is in fact quite relevant.
You can of course hold such beliefs but only act on them peacefully, but it's not unreasonable to suggest that someone who is anti-government is more likely to use violence against government property than someone who is pro-government.

Wait ... Occupy WallStreet is demanding that the Government take more money from it's people ? I though it had to do with fighting corruption in politics ... :/ Don't they have a bunch of hackervist's working for them ?

Yes, indeed. Tax increases on the wealthy to get them to pay their fair share (at least as much of a percent of their income as average working people) is, in fact, demanding that the government take more money from people.

They openly called for higher taxation.

But the whole "occupy" movement in general is a mish-mash of incoherent ideologies and goals.

One thing they protested about was the lower tax rates on dividend payments, which are in fact taxed twice - corporate tax and then dividend tax.

Hilariously, they also protested about bank bailouts too, which while being perhaps the only point I agreed with them on also makes them hypocrites as such bailouts were dependent on tax funding.

Oh, and here's raw numbers:
http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak...2986_n.jpg

69% of US tax revenue comes from those earn above $100k a year - and the rich should be paying more?

I could use the same argument to say that taxes shouldn't get taken out of my paycheck, because my employer already paid taxes on that money before giving it to me.

The average tax rate on a working person in the United States is 34%. The maximum tax rate that a person who makes all of their income from dividend payments is 12%. Yes, I think they should be paying more.

Except that because it's a higher income, they are paying more already. Look at the overall volume rather than just the % rate.

Not quite - dividend payments are paid from property (stock) that you own.

Imagine you own a shop, you make sales and your profits are taxed, and then on top of that when you draw those profits out they're taxed again. The overall effective tax rate can therefore work out to be much higher.

It's supposed to be higher. That's how the tax code is designed. If I get a higher paycheck than normal, the dollar amount that I pay in taxes also goes up.

Most wealthy people not only make more money, but also make more use of the commons while making that money. Considering that, I think it's fair to expect them to pay more in taxes.

Besides, looking at the overall volume rather than the percent is a classic strawman argument designed to make the upper class tax rate look like class warfare, when in reality, it's just math.

In other words, your business is taxed, and then your personal income is taxed.

As an example, if your corporation makes $100k the tax rate on that corporation is "$13,750 + 34% Of the amount over 75,000"
So that's $52,250.0

Then qualified dividend tax is 15% - leaving $44,412.50

The effective tax rate is thus 55.58%