Forum Post: Define a one percenter...
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 1, 2011, 3:09 a.m. EST by newearthorder
(295)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What is your definition of a one percenter?
the 1% is pretty well defined by income. however, this movement is about much more. we are at the point of imbalance that has cause the collapse or serious downfall of so many countries and civilizations. i think the current protests symbolize a love of this country and a different way, a more civilized way of restoring the balance. i would say 99% of the people being arrested for civil disobedience and 99% of the cops doing the arresting are emblematic of a desire to create change in a more reasonable and mature manner. some of the protesters feel the cops are being a little harsh, and they may be right. but protesters also spend the day pissing them off with verbal assault. all things considered, i think it's going swimmingly.
I want to be a billionaire. Does that make me a 1% idealist?
I think we have to be careful with numbers. The term 'One Percenter' does not strictly define 3 million people in the U.S. I think a lot of people could be defined in this category and they don't even realize it.
Anyone on the board of directors of a corporation who voted to send American jobs out of the country just to make a little more cash would fit in this category, even though they are probably not billionaires themselves.
They are the ones who would vote to take away the right of the people to organize labor.
They are people who would vote to cut medicare and medicaid while at the same time cutting taxes on the top level.
They are people who advocate eliminating the minimum wage like Steve Forbes did.
The amount of money you have in your bank account does not define you as a one percenter.
It is what you believe, respect, and value that puts you in that category.
Hey its the same person but I think I got kicked out. Ok good to know. Thanks.
A one percenter is a person who may not be paying his fair share of tax, percentage wise. He is a person who is a corporate or banking leader who helps pollute our political process with money to the severe detriment of the rest of us, and makes more than 300 times as much as his average worker does, compared to 30 years ago when he only made 30-40 times as much. He is a person who thinks he deserves a platinum citizenship and no accountability for his misdeeds because of his wealth and political connections.
A one percenter is not a person who works harder, is more entrepreneurial, talented, and/or more intelligent, and hence did better than most of us--- as long as he didn't send jobs overseas, and treated his employees like s..t. I think most of the other people in this movement would agree with that definition. In summation: one percenter bad, ninety nine percenter good!
The term 1% in this context is really a symbol, not a description of individuals. It is useful in that it points out clearly the obscene level of income disparity in this country, the greatest disparity by far in the developed world. And it points out how such gross disparity is also the driver of the destruction of democracy and the economy alike, given so much power is concentrated in so few hands, and how those hands are embedded.
You got it.
1% buys their representation in government.
A person in the 1% has over 11 millon in assets and makes about 300k in a year.
I think a one percenter is someone who does not value or respect work.
They only value and respect wealth and power.
Wealth and power acquired via work :P
Not much wealth and power was ever acquired by work. Most of it is inherited or gained through corrupt manipulation.
wow, just wow.
Comments like this make me want to puke.
What's a two percenter?
Billionaires Use Tax Loophole To Lower Their Tax Rates To 1 Percent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=f2Fh-fR9U_Y
The demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy in The U$A = Govt. OF The 99%, BY A ~1%, FOR The ~0.01 % !
Therefore 'imho', your question should more properly read : "What is the definition of a ~0.01%er ?" and my one word answer would be ; PARASITE !!
ad iudicium ...
I think the 1% here is not only about money but those who have earned this through trickery and fraud and human injustice!! There are several in the financial 1% who are decent citizens.
There are many there who belong to the 1% who are not close in terms of money, to the corrupt moneybags (I refuse to use value or worth), but who are their stooges. Take for instance, judges, law enforcement, the majority of congress and government, lobbyists, in fact being not even close to that top 1% in money terms their similarity to this 1% is in their moral bankruptcy.
We need to protest hollywood.All those actors making millions through trickery.
[Removed]
So if everyone here thinks a 1%er is something different, there can be no unity on what you are fighting. And without a clearly defined enemy, you can never clearly define a strategy for winning.
To me, it is the lack of clarity that proves that those who are behind this movement aren't really concerned about winning anything. They merely want chaos for the sake of chaos and not reform.
//i.imgur.com/iVjUA.jpg
For over 400 years in the west 1% has been codeword for banker or J E W. This is why many consider OWS a right-wing organization.
Really a person that's in the 1% is someone that's a part of the super rich that control a little more than half of our nation's wealth. The other 99% (us) controls the rest. We are vastly out-proportioned.
The 1% control the means of production. I've had this argument before, but see if you think this is right. On one hand, it is unique in America that a person can start a business and be very successful.
On the other hand, and I've seen this happen many times, you could go out and start your own business with the limited investment capital you have, let's say a restaurant. A billionaire could build a restaurant right across the street from yours with the same menu and charge half as much as you charge for the exact same meal, effectively buying all the business.
Limited capital=no control. Nearly unlimited capital=total control.
Check out the story of Preston Tucker and how he tried to challenge the big 3 automobile manufacturers. in the late 1940's.
http://www.economicthinking.org/Americanhistory/tucker-greg.html
It was also a pretty good movie. 'Tucker, The Man and His Dream'.