Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Its not 99%-1% its 1%-70%

Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 15, 2012, 7:08 p.m. EST by WuWei (34) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Where does this 99%/1% figure come from?

"....In fact, the super rich - the top 0.01% of the population - own more of the national wealth now than at any time since 1928, just before the Great Depression. And the richest 1% of the US population? They own a third of US net worth....."

google: Gaurdian+"Occupy protestors say it is 99% v 1%. Are they right"

8 Comments

8 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by WuWei (34) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I has been wondering this for a long time but would the amount America borrowed over the years equivalent to the cost of the Tax breaks for the rich? If it was you could say then y that they might well have handed it straight over to them. Maybe you could add the tax cuts to that figure as well but they were probably needed for increased military spending and the war on drugs.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

There is no war on drugs.

It's a race war. At least be honest with yourself, WuWei.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5805) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

It's just a metaphor, a catch-phrase. It's not meant to be mathematically accurate, although it has caused a bit of confusion and debate.

[-] 1 points by WuWei (34) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Yes I can see your point, it's just a rallying cry so to speak but the Guardian article says that the public seriously underestimate inequality are were surprised even at the more moderate figures that the Guardian informed them about. So as a call to arms it may be effective but it doesn't seem to work as propaganda. I was expecting to have my head chewed off over this because whenever I been told this and I asked for a breakdown of the figures the other person usually gets very angry. Anyway thank God for Russia today. Last weekend Occupy were allowed free reign on RT and came up with some very impressive statistics. I was amazed to learn, for instance, that in California 3000 people are serving life sentences for shop lifting. All the best!

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5805) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yeah, OWS got a little flak for the 99% slogan. Many (quite a few, in fact) were quick to point out the inaccuracy of the math. But, oh well. Accuracy notwithstanding, it is as good a slogan as any, I guess.

Although I don't know the details of those 3,000 Californians serving life, I'll bet they were multiple offenders and that dreaded "third-strike" law came into play. It's just an educated guess, though. All the best to you, as well.

[-] 1 points by WuWei (34) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I ree read the Guardian article and was shocked at the statistic that the bottom 120 million Americans only own 0.3% of the NatIons wealth. So 1% is more than justified, if you do belong to that 120 million, in fact it's even generous. I'm sorry I ever doubted you. I thought: forget about the 0.3%. Those people have nothing. You might as well say that 75% of the nation own 100% of the wealth. If If 15% of 315 million own 85% of the nations wealth then 20% of 195 million ( 315- 120) own 113%. That cannot be right. The Guardian got their figures from a report from the congressional budget office which I have downloaded from the article. Would anyone mind checking the figures for me? If you must you could contact the Guardian but the British are the most innumerate race on Earth. Whatever the real figures are it does seem that there is a very small middle-class in America.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5805) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yes, and the middle class is shrinking fast, apparently. It doesn't bode well for this country. The huge wealth disparity in this country is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed immediately and this is one of OWS' core beliefs.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

How about we take all the shit that people own and compare it to the top 0.01% then tell me who has more wealth.