Forum Post: The difference between 1% & 99%
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 29, 2011, 9:54 a.m. EST by MitchK
(305)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Does anyone know what the difference is?
$1.00 yeah thats it...if you do not know that than guess what you do not what the heck is going on here.
Does anyone know that 1% REALLY is not 1% but more like 2%(maybe more)?
Uh yeah(look it up) 1% making 250K is being used from AGI not TI and also its based on FAMILY not individual even based on AGI its more than 1%.
Does anyone know what formula was used to say 250k was is the dividing line for wealthy/middle class? Why is 120k not wealthy?
NONE,no formula it was just a number used by Bill Clinton. He just used 250,000 to rasie the tax braket to 39.6% for them prior to that George Bush Sr. highest tax bracket ,31% was for those making 86,500 so than that was the wealthy. There is NO,NONE,NADA economical basis for 250k being the line for wealthy and non.
Does anyone know what the abrreviations : egtrra/jgtrra means?
Well if not you should not be using terms and phrases such as " rich robbing the poor thru unfair taxes" , "1% /rich/corporations corrupting the govt" , etc... those abbreviations are what coined those phrases and this was OUR mission statement originally,to change that.
What I am saying people I do not agree with the way the govt is lead around like puppets,but,we should know what the problems are,were they lie.LOOK at them read about them investigate them and TRY to form our own opinions and ideas on them,see the good and bad points. Not just do what the politicians do and get lead around by others ideas,words and "phrases".
Learn about what you are Fighting for than fight for it.."you" are speaking for ALOT fo people not for yourself and should know atleast have SOME type of intelligent understanding of things first before you speak.
I for one would not want my foot dr. performing open heart surgery on me. I do not want a person not willing to work to be properly informed speaking for me.
BTW 250K is not that wealthy...and no I do not make that money before you say I am one of them. I know people who ,when I made 85,000 they thought I was wealthy,when I earned 90k I was SUPER WEALTHY, 100k SUPER DUPER WEALTHY, I know people now that see me making 25,000 a year and they think I am upper middle class....see me not working they still say I am rich I have a home to live in....who says who is wealthy? What determines true wealth? Why is 250K THE WEALTHY? Why are we not fighting against the ones who make 150K or 90K or ...it can go on for ever
I don't think 250K is wealthy! Wealthy is having billions, not a few million (after a lifetime of earning it). Most of the people who think they are the 1%, aren't in the book of the 99%. Its the billionaire megalomaniacs that got our ire. There seems to be great confusion in the minds of owners of small businesses and companies. I don't know who told them this movement means to hurt them but they've been lied to. We here in the lowly bottoms want it to be possible to make a million dollars! We just get ripped when people like Wellsfargo make billions and get a check from the government!
You are right... it's the billionaire megalomaniacs that have wrestled political power away from the average citizens of this country.
Globally, this type greed has removed trillions of dollars from the hardest working people on this planet!
I agree to some extent with you jaded I do not think that 250 makes you wealthy. So than what do you consider 1% and how do you come to that conclusion? What do YOU use as a factor to determine who is what is 1%? I also NEED to agree that these banks did get taken care of a LITTLE to much by the govt and given them the money they did not give it with enouhg or proper stipulaitions,especially regarding bonuses and such.
The people who own stock in Monsanto need to be looked at for sure. Big time stock holders in banks, electric companies, oil, gas, telecommunications, News outlets. The boards of directors of these companies all need looking at. Anything that is a basic need for people should be regulated and profits capped. If you can cap rent, why not gas at the pump? The government will raise minimum wage then basic utility providers raise their rates and increase their profits by margins that are over and above any increased cost to them. In effect a raise in minim wage simply lines the pockets of people who already have a virtual monopoly on the basic services people require and nothing is left to simulate the economy. Its not even funny, people have less and less buying power and are forced to buy cheap imported goods because nothing else is available to them. These people and industries need to take a hit and a big one. Monsanto needs dismantlement too, farmers need choices in the seed market Monsanto went around buying out to gain a monopoly. There should be no monopoly of the worlds seed. Room needs to exist in the market for innovators and entrepreneurs who develop the next generation of products and especially those that help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. If hospitals, prisons, water, sewage were not to be privatized you would see good things come out of it. Privatization is just raping the population for profit. It is not cheaper to create millionaires than it is to run some necessary things geared to generate no profits. And money in politics is how we got into this awful position in the first place and none of the above changes can be made until we make our politicians serve the PEOPLE!
[Removed]
MitchK GREAT point...I may not see some of what you see or think the same as you,but, I have to agree people should know what their beef is before acting on it. Knowledge is a wonderul thing. You can not debate for OR against if are not willing to work for the facts to your best understanding. Thank you for a VERY valid point(s)
Being I do have an openmind I will agree as well that what is the truth why is 250,000 a year considered wealthy. I had to look up AGI and TI ,yes,it does adjust things a little and yes who knows how many people actually tell the truth on their returns about income and such. As for your abbreviations well done,probably only .001% of the protesters know what it means and yes I see how the corrupt government and rich bribing can come from it.
Thank you for you thinkingb4speaking (a reference to my name)
Glad I can be of service thinkb4speak and yes I got the reference to your name at the end. You know something you do not have to agree with my views. Thats what makes this country great my and your morallity great the fact we can agree to disagree sometimes or just agree but do so informed,with an open mind, be willing to change if you think you heard/see something that can change your mind,not be swayed into insults,curses.
Hope to continue a good debate now and than. You just keep up a good intelligent fight for your opinions and I will try and to the same and not be mislead ny just random rambles with no thoughts of their own.
Hey wait I just actually noticed something...there are point for a comment or a post or something...wow does this mean the one with the most points win?????? How does it work? How do I get points? How can I be greedy and gain more like those "we" are against?????? hahahaha (evil laugh)WHY is there some type of point system on a site about doing away with greed and rich?
There are some good references concerning the class structure and what constitutes the 1%, etc. These references suggest we should not lump the entire 99% into one single category. See the web site for William Domhoff (http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) and see an article by Michael Albert on znet - http://www.zcommunications.org/we-are-the-99-but-are-we-by-michael-albert. These are very enlightening.
profrgs
The 1% works hard and the 99% doesn't.
Screw I will not go as far as to say that...some were born itno it,maybe their moms,dads,dads did....but if I REALLY WANTED to become one of these alleged 1% than yes I can get their if I work hard and not let my GREED for nice materialistic things get in the way while striving to get to be one of these alleged 1%
MitchK...Here's some information for you..... The most common measure used, and the most understandable is: what share of total wealth is owned by the richest households, typically the top 1 percent. In the United States, in the last survey year, 1998, the richest 1 percent of households owned 38 percent of all wealth...................................................The best way of measuring wealth is to use household surveys, where interviewers ask households, from a very detailed form, about the assets they own, and the kinds of debts and other liabilities they have run up. Household surveys provide the main source of information on wealth distribution.
Of these household surveys — there are now about five or six surveys that ask wealth questions in the United States — probably the best source is the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances.
This is the most easily understood measure.
There is also another measure called the Gini coefficient. It measures the concentration of wealth at different percentile levels, and does an overall computation. It is an index that goes from zero to one, one being the most unequal. Wealth inequality in the United States has a Gini coefficient of .82, which is pretty close to the maximum level of inequality you can have.
ok so I ask again...what determines the 1% and btw I am in 2011 not 1998,it says the richest 1% of households own 38% of wealth....well
what richest 1% and where does that come from?
what 38% and where does that come from?
I see the word typically in there not factual , common measure ,soundslike well as a matter of doing we commonly use....I still and either do you see no sound FACTS that make the 1% in this study the 38% or the richest households,either
MitchK....Your inability to comprehend the facts and figures I gave you is dumbfounding.............................................Wealth inequality in the United States, also known as the "wealth gap", refers to the unequal distribution of financial assets among residents of the United States. Wealth includes the values of homes, automobiles, businesses, savings, and investments Those who acquire a great deal of financial wealth do so primarily through the appreciation of fiscal portfolios. For this reason, financial wealth involves only stocks and mutual funds, and other investments. Hence, there is greater financial inequality than simple net worth disparities. Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth."Although different from income inequality, the two are often interrelated.
Melvin L. Oliver and Thomas M. Shapiro propose that wealth signifies the opportunity to “make it” in life; wealth is not used for daily expenditures or factored into a budget but when coupled with income it comprises the family’s total opportunity “to secure a desired stature and standard of living, or pass their class status along to one’s children”. Moreover, “wealth provides for both short- and long-term financial security, bestows social prestige, and contributes to political power, and can be used to produce more wealth." Hence, wealth possesses a psychological element that awards people the feeling of agency, or the ability to act. The accumulation of wealth grants more options and eliminates restrictions about how one can live life. Dennis Gilbert asserts that the standard of living of the working and middle classes is dependent upon income and wages, while the rich tend to rely on wealth, distinguishing them from the vast majority of Americans.
MitchK...you seem to have difficulty is seeing the truth when presented to you, so you use a "strawman" and change the subject....Your an obvious Troll.
why can you not answer the question in that study,before it even STARTS it states.."
...The most common measure used, and the most understandable is: what share of total wealth is owned by the richest households, typically the top 1 percent...."
Again I ask who is and what determines them to be the top1% that owns this 38% of WEALTH and what does that mean 38% of wealth what determines WEALTH in that "study" in again 1998?
MitchK....Your off subject......the typical poly of a Troll.............. Respond to may factual information or shut up......Wealth...Wealth is the stuff that people own. The main items are your home, other real estate, any small business you own, liquid assets like savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, bonds, other securities, stocks, and the cash surrender value of any life insurance you have. Those are the total assets someone owns. From that, you subtract debts. The main debt is mortgage debt on your home. Other kinds of debt include consumer loans, auto debt and the like. That difference is referred to as net worth, or just wealth.........................The best way of measuring wealth is to use household surveys, where interviewers ask households, from a very detailed form, about the assets they own, and the kinds of debts and other liabilities they have run up. Household surveys provide the main source of information on wealth distribution.
Of these household surveys — there are now about five or six surveys that ask wealth questions in the United States — probably the best source is the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances.
Ok so based on that I own a home, a small business,have a saving account,stocks,cd,401k,,,,blah blah blah,,,so if I subtract tha debt and such from my net worth I have 50K left I am considered wealthy? You still did not and can not give an answer let me see you try again what determines who is wealthy or the wealthy?
I know people that think I was wealthy when I earned 100k had VERY LITTLE credit card debt and have a car. Than I think my old boss is wealthy than he thinks the other other buiness owner is wealthy but he is not...that guy thinks Trump is wealthy,trump considers wealthy the prince of saudi arabia....LISTEN for a change WHAT DETERMINES WEALTHY? You or anyone else can not answer that just ideas,estimate,theories and thoughts,usually thoughts from a person who does not have what the next man does.
Mitchk...Your off subject yet again, whats wrong have no answers to my facts.......................................There is a special supplement sample that is relied on to provide information about high income households. Wealth turns out to be highly skewed, so that a very small proportion of families owns a very large share of total wealth. Most surveys miss these families. But the Survey of Consumer Finances uses information provided by the Internal Revenue Service to construct a special supplemental sample on high income households, so they can zero in on the high wealth holders.
chuck...what FACT other than that there is an inequality of wealth in the world,country,states,countys,schools,.etc....
Its does not PROVE anything other than that! ^
...."You hear anecdotes all the time: The poorest 20% of the people on Earth earn only 1% of the income. A mere 20% of the people on Earth consume 86% of the consumer goods. Only 3%of the U.S. population owns 95% of the privately held land. The Gini index offers a consistent way to talk about statistics like these...."
"....Being only a single summary statistic, the Gini index has been critiqued by social scientists [2]. It is true that no summary statistic can reveal all we need to know about the distribution of income, wealth, or land. Even so, the Gini index deserves to be better known in the mathematical community, as it continues to find application in new situations, from genetics [7] to astronomy [1]. In addition to a self-contained presentation of the Gini....."
"...A search of the literature turns up many efforts to explain away the Gini index as inaccurate or incomplete. It seems to me that none of these objections should prevent us from using the Gini index to analyze data for ourselves and share the results with those we know. It matters to me to know a few summary statistics, though they be mere summary statistics, and to know how to relate them to average outcomes of thought experiments about who earns the average dollar and about the poorer of two households....."
Now I do what you did I copy and paste...BTW its from SCU math dept. and yes there are other slike it ...mmmmm maybe even harvard and m.i.t....it basically says ,again if you read with an open mind, its ok to use as a study but its not proven factual formula.
So again since YOU know how these studys work you are a believer in them...what do you consider wealthy?
Trump,the President of Goldman Sachs,The city Sanitation Worker,Alex Rodriguez,The Car Salesman,Warren Buffet,The Small Business owner, The property Owner,The homeless person?
MitchK....You manage to put a long string of words together but nothing to back up your long winded response.. Why don't you copy and paste some facts rather than isolated opinion that you filter.....Some actual facts supported by the majority of experts, like the Gini Index....................... I've given you my opinion of the wealthy and you did not respond....
BTW those long string of words come from mathmaticians,and statiscians,not from me.
You never once, given YOUR opinion of who is the wealthy..not once...and copy and paste seems to be what you and everyone esle on here does who can not think for self but needs to just regergetate someone elses thoughts,therories and ideas. And for the Gini index,,,first used n what the 1800's. Shows again inequality levels and can not be used as a factual basis a deffinitave answer.....
I'll try to make this simple,so even you can understand this, since YOU and the rest on here feel the "WEALTHY" are robbing america ( even though you still can not answer how that phrase came about ) I want you, NOW SIMPLEY to answer, Who is considered wealthy to you ,What is considered wealthy to you?
MitchK....your being thick, the information I've presented to you agrees with my opinion of wealthy....Is that plain enough....
well if you say so ....I guess I am what you conisder wealthy because after income,assets,-debts I still have 1000.00 liquidity or am I wealthy if I have 50,000 liquidity, or 1000000 liquidity or 1.00 you gacve me a study that tells you how to dreive what wealth is ,in whos eyes though the ones taling the study.... I asked YOUR OPINION not some studies...why do you find it difficult to give your opinion..is it the fact that you might not be in conformity of what others think, that there is no TRUE answer, or that you are what others think are wealthy?
Mitchk..My opinion would be just that mine, the studies indicate what it is to be considered wealthy. Is that so hard to understand?...There is one true answer and I've given it to you, you just don't like it.
Dumb as a rock huh...you gave a definition as defined by someone in the 1800's you gave a definition used that is NOT used as a scientific fact. I am dumb as a rock,you make no decision for your self other than to conform to what you hear and I am dumb as a rock,ok.
You now offfer what YOUR opinion is to wealthy...So I will ask again...who is the wealthy "you" are "mad" at and "blaming" Based on what you just said? (portion of their wealth from Trust funds,Capital gain,Inheritance,etc...) I would love an example...is bloomberg? I mean HE worked,you may not think so but he did. Is the CEO of Goldman Sachs, he worked to get where he is. The lawyer who "works" . Why is it so dififcult for you to answer? The person who did work NOW can live off his investments is he wealthy,even though he did work?
I will tell you why I wil make it easy for you...if you give an answer to an individual,your idea of that person may be wealthy, than you MIGHT not be able to group others into the "group" you call the "1%" or whoever it is your all complaining about...you know probably people like yourself.
MitchK....You read but don't comprehend, definition from the 1800's, you had better put up ,or shut up on that one......Do you think Bloomberg earns the major portion of his wealth from working? Your dumber than a rock. Go back to school idiot you have no idea what your talking about........."He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger". Confucius
I seen read and understand inequality but again I put it to you ..."you" are "mad" at the "1%" who do you,chuck,consider this alleged "1%" is that simplier for you to understand? I know especially attending Brooklyn law, that lawyers do not understand simple things,they try to complicate them so that there is no true answer,What I ask of you is a simple question,one that you seem to avoid. Yes you are alawyer never give a closed end answer you can not back out of later or change when it does not fit your "need"
Here its is again for all to see YOUR answer to a question a direct answer.
"you" are "mad", at the "1%" ,"blaming" them, who do you,chuck,consider this alleged "1%" ?
MitchK...Your either a troll or dumb as a rock. I gave you the complete definition of a wealthy person.............Wealthy in my humble opinion is a family that derives a good portion of their wealth from , Capital Gains, Trust Funds or Inheritance and does not rely on employment to sustain their life style.
No you did not you gave a way to determine some type of wealth so being I used that formula on myself and I have liquid asset than am I wealthy? Or is it that that "study" shows a PERSON WEALTH not saying it shows who is wealthy and that is what I am asking you ...so using that Formula...I will ask again what is considered the RICH the WEALTHY?
MitchK...Okay, poor memory or doesn't read my reply's BTW "you are not wealthy"... .........While income is often seen as a type of wealth in colloquial language use, wealth and income are two substantially different measures of economic prosperity. While there may be a high correlation between income and wealth, the relationship cannot be described as causal...............................................Wealth inequality in the United States, also known as the "wealth gap", refers to the unequal distribution of financial assets among residents of the United States. Wealth includes the values of homes, automobiles, businesses, savings, and investments. Those who acquire a great deal of financial wealth do so primarily through the appreciation of fiscal portfolios. For this reason, financial wealth involves only stocks and mutual funds, and other investments...... Hence, there is greater financial inequality than simple net worth disparities. Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth." Although different from income inequality, the two are often interrelated..........................wealth signifies the opportunity to “make it” in life; wealth is not used for daily expenditures or factored into a budget but when coupled with income it comprises the family’s total opportunity “to secure a desired stature and standard of living, or pass their class status along to one’s children”. Moreover, “wealth provides for both short- and long-term financial security, bestows social prestige, and contributes to political power, and can be used to produce more wealth." Hence, wealth possesses a psychological element that awards people the feeling of agency, or the ability to act.
Thank you for introducing this discussion!
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The above link comes from an article in Forbes magazine this month talking about "wealth" vs "income" etc, and the Occupy Movement. The link is helpful for determining how "wealth" is calculated among economists etc vs how "wealth" is usually thought of by the general public:
"Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (see Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth -- also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."
I think it is CRITICAL to this movement, AND this country's sanity/future for EVERYONE to be on the same page, using the same criteria and definitions, when we have these discussions. You cannot solve a problem with elephants when some of the people in the discussion are talking about kangaroos.
justthefacts...thank you, YES the truth is I do not say wealthy rich poor I dont really care....the problem is the "voicers" the "movers" the "liberaters" "speaking" for the 99% NEED to be on the same page same criteria( you need open minds for that) and just do not throw around things because they hear them.
The Wolff study also shows different types of wealth. And again no "study" is infalable or perfect...S**T there are scientist, philosophers,etc..that say that Einsteins theory of reletivity is incomplete and not totally acurate.
Thats why I brought this question up...I know my OPINION who I feel is wealthy,but,its not suppose to be about my opinion when/if "speaking" for ALOT of people and than saying it is fact.
From the same article/link I posted below, here are the numbers according to the LATEST data we have (2007 rather than 1998)-
"...the top one percent of the country owns 34.6% of the wealth in total net worth; the next 19% owns 50.5%; the bottom 80% owns 15%."
"In financial wealth, the figures are even more startling: 42.7%, 50.3%, and 7.0% respectively. "
It also details HOW they came to those figures and what assets or incomes etc were used in the calculations for each section and chart. The charts are awesome. (visual learner here)
Well said Mitch and so very true. I fully support OWS and firmly believe its time to boot bank, wall street and corporate influence out of our government however, I take the time to do the research before I open my mouth. If we all take a little time to do our homework the movement will have much more of an impact.
VT I thank you, and I will say I am not perfect at it or think I am always 1000000% right BUT I will put the work in,with an openmind, to get my point of view across with some basis and think everyone should, especially if you want to VOICE for the alleged 99% its a BIG responsibility.And actually might than be taken a little more seriously.
VT MitcK Supports you...lol
The research become easier and easier as well once you get the hang of it. Without fail I learn something new as well. What's better than learning something new of this world? Nothing says I - especially when it enriches your understanding of the world and the human race and strengthens your ability to relate to them.
WOW if only more people thought like you....I would love to re-post your threads over and over...Research,learn something new, enrich your understanding,. Som eof the finest words I heard spoken here or anywhere esle for that matter. I do truly hope one day all of mankind will think like that. Right now thoug Id shettle for the people on here ,the "protesters" the "voicers" THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I tip my hat to you.
it's not about a number. it's about what is extracted from the economy and what's given back. capitalism doesn't work if extractions are not reinvested into the economy. and buying congress ain't investment.
Well I do agree with you BUT if you ask those who speak for "US" they came up with this theory and notions and ideas. Not me,the OWSers,the protesters,the "people" I do not agree with the numbers I am just saying and wodnering how this was gotten to,these numbers and percentages to be consider facts and a basis for a debate and or protest.
The 1% has money to blow out their ass. The 99 has wistful dreams.
sure. 95% of those who struggle made bad choices. single mothers, quit school, drugs, and on and on. I'll help those who had no choice. The rest of you get a job and quit whining.
Agreed. I have no problem, giving aid to people that deserve it/ need it.
I do not know I am DEFFINATELY not in the "1% as you all say and I blew money out my ass,,,like a fool,like most americans,living above their needs and means, but I did it.
You all does not include me. I disagree with their ideas and I was making a sarcastic comment. However, that is a problem with all of what's going on today.
Than I am sorry ,thats why I have to sometimes write (sarcasm) when I write something...lol...I do think things need to change in govt and laws but shit know what you say( not you proverbally) and go about it in the right way.
I agree that things need to change. However, I think these people are going about it all wrong in the first place.
True true very true...and like in the other post thread I am in agreeance about legalizing prositution...lol
I don't see the harm in it. It could get rid of the negative stigma associated with them. And they could have rights instead of dealing with abusive overseers.
wow so true...and think about the income in tax revenue,think of the guys paying alot more dating and than not even getting any? The numerous times guys "fall in love" becaue they paid some much into already they might as well get married...lol..Hey I am all for prostitution,escorts, pleasure of the flesh paid for the same way I pay for pleasure of the ...lungs,stomach or other parts of my body.
It would also be a requirement to get checked for STD's every couple of weeks or so. Pleasures of the wrist.
lol...and yes your right like in vegas...
Funny I go to a bar tonight spend 125 on drinks for me and some girl I JUST met there take her home and sleep with her...good for me
I stay home call an escort pay 125 dollars and I get arrested
go figure
To be honest, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious.
DEAD serious...I am sorry i told you if I am being sarcastic I will do this (sarcasm so you know).. I am not joking ,,,compare those two scenarios bar girl call girl....
call girl HAS to be examined bi weekly bar girl DOES not
call girl NEEDS to take care of health for business bar girl...well does not
call girl does her job and leaves does not bother you for affection you are not looking for bar girl can become a stalker
Now when I say bar girl thats just what i use as an expression in that scenerio or a word I do not mean some bar fly it can be any girl
I love my wife love our relastionship I do not stray I am glad I found her and she I. But I have to say for those I used above and other reasons I am a proponent of legalized prositution. Again I can BUY alcohol to pleasure myself,food,candy,snacks for pleasure(not for sustance but pleasure) but can not get a woman like that when ALL I want to do is satisfy a pleasure.
I agree with you when it comes to the person that you are devoted to you should be devoted to them. It would create new industry and probably a new portion of the 1%. I don't have a problem with that but some people might.
I don't define the 1% by income. It's about government corruption. 1% buys their representation in government. 99% are left with the scraps.
Well hello and good morning April....well i can not, neither agree or disgree with you...the point is the term,the saying,the expression "1%" does stand for what people perceive to be the "wealthy" because they make 250,000.00 a year,now I just wanted to submit a point that those saying it do not really know what they are saying...you may consider it something totally different and hey good for you. Good for you not just to conform to the masses though wrong in their statements. Keep that open mind open April. Thank you.
I am the 2% the 99% fights for me so I can become the top 1% dance puppets dance. HAHAHAHAHA
huh? can you please explain what you are talking about either for my post or against? Or some type of view or idea, not just ramble. Explain intelligently than have fun and goof around Im all for it.
saying the 1% is the problem is not getting at the root of the problem. The government and the super wealthy.
Still little confused is your point that the problem is not the 1% or is, Is it the govt or is it not? the root of the problem is FAR beyond politicians being puppets,far beyond the wealthy,but,thats a different issue.
So ludog whats is the root of the problem in your eyes? Lets see if you are on the same page as OWS or you are just going to repeat others thoughts...Go!
The root of the problem is that the same people congress regulates are the same people who are paying them. We need to stop such rampant corruption in the government.
ok corruption or legal donations and lobbying? Now do I think what you are saying is correct,except for the words you use,hell yeah. Do reulations have to be made and or changed to those issues yes.
Now you/we can not blame the "rich" for doing what is in their legal right to do,can not call them criminals for that. Can not and should not take our focus of not liking what we liked in 2001/2003 out on them we should fight our govt on it.
Fight is what I say when I mean WRITE,OVER AND OVER,call ,email,VOTE.
Than remember when if we change anything I will assure you that there will deffinately be a large amount of people that do not like the changes,you cannot please everyone.
Firs tthing WE need to change is US our greed,pride,lving above our means,that feed the greed of the corporations that feed the greed of the politicians.
Legal Donations are fine. Saying I will give you 5,000 dollars to make sure a law does not get passed is corruption.
oh yes yes that is. Who did that? When? Where?
http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/08/world-billionaires-2011-intro.html
"One in three billionaires is an American, down from nearly one out of two a decade ago. It has 10 more than last year but 56 fewer than its 2008 peak. The U.S. is adding new billionaires at a much slower pace; just 6% of its 413 billionaires are new this year compared with 47% of China's and 30% of Russia's."
America has 413 billionaires as of 2011. That's closer to .0001% of the population than 1% by a loooooooooooooooooong shot.
thank you that I did not know....and now another problem arises I do not consider them wealthy,how many others do not?....lol..so does that make those billionaires part of the " 99% " now everyone is talking about? I consider gazillionaires the wealthy....lol
For those who do not know this particular thread is all sarcasim and a joke (LIGHTEN UP EVERYONE...lol) ,except where I said Thank you about not knowing that part I was serious about.
Met a man on Rick Perry's Facebook page that made 250k and he actually submitted his monthly expenses and complained that he and his family only had 40k/year for entertainment and vacations!!!!!!!
waah..other's success bothers you. Maybe you can work and have money to spend and support all those workers.
Again I do not disagree he may be a greedy,prideful person with no sense of morailty or humility but what does his comment mean?
Was he an individual making 250K or joint? Was that his TI or AGI?
If he makes 250K why does that make him RICH and WEALTHY versus the person making $1.00 less (cause guess what 249,000.00 takes a person out of that "1%")
How do you now if his thought on entertainment is spending on charities ( I doubt it Im just saying) or actually eating home cooked meals?I mean theres a lot variations to consider.
Karen can you answer ANY of the questions I posted above?
Again do I think he with 40K believes it is not enough to "play" is not a morally,spiritually filled person and greedy pig,yes,but I still pose the questions above to you and everyone else.
not sure why you are saying that 250k is the dividing line - that may have been talked about in the media but no one who is serious uses that number. the real problem is not the 1% but more like the .1% or even .01% - that is where the money and power concentrated. 1% is somewhere in the 350k range - those are not the people who go to the $1000 a plate fund raisers etc. while someone making 250k or 350k is very well off (the average income for the bottom 90% of households is 32k - 250 looks pretty good to those people) they are not the wealth of the country. having said that they can also afford to pay more in tax - the bottom 90% is being crushed
Hi, Can you please summarize your questions 1., 2. etc. ... lol Where does it say a person who makes 250k is part of the 1%?
That was the man's total income and he was complaining about the possibility of paying more in taxes.
Karen the masses who are the protesters are the ones the OWSers,the 99% say that the the 1% equation comes from the 1% of the counrty earning more than 250,00 k the "wealthy",not the 99%. Where this theory came from I have no idea...Why they say this is, a HUGE mystery to me thats why I ask these questions. I did not start this and say these things the "99%" did.
As for this man complaining I did not see it and I do not care to it has nothing to do with my post. You "met" him on facebook and your thread above did not mention anything about him complaining he might have to pay more taxes.
"Met a man on Rick Perry's Facebook page that made 250k and he actually submitted his monthly expenses and complained that he and his family only had 40k/year for entertainment and vacations!!!!!!!"
the 99% say that the the 1% equation comes from the 1% of the counrty earning more than 250,00 k the "wealthy",not the 99%.
Huh, I have not read that any where and I did not realize this. The 1% to me is like Rockefeller, Goldman Sachs, etc..
A lot of the 99% protesting I suspect are not informed and I am disturbed that this is what they are saying. I am pretty sure that there are more than 1% in America making 250k and above.
I am ure there is also infact the "line" determning "wealthy" to be 250,000 a year was not based on anything at all either. Watch this ready? Bush Sr. during his "reign" the top tax bracket was 31% and that was effecting people over 86,500 a year so therefore they were "considered" wealthy,upper class. Clinton during his "party" he rasied the top tax bracket to 39.6 effecting people over 250,000 yrly,hence those "considered" wealthy now just went from 86,500 to 250,000. Heres even more of a problem the 250,000.oo is a family income not individual,like people think and its AGI not TI. Also this is all based on people being honest on their tax returns....lol..damn human greed and pride still plays a BIG part in these equations.
Karen lets go further of having people speak for you ,my question about some abbreviations I noted...thats about the Bush Jr. Tax Cuts and thats the main reason the terms "1% robbing people" ,1%,rich,wealthy,corporations corrupting the govt"...people say he changed the laws (some say the bankers actually themselves changed it) to give loopholes to the rich,top 1%,the corporations.
I went to the OWS at ,well wall street and seen asked spoke with some of these things there speaking for you,for us...its ashame what I see and what I hear. Want to hear some of it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
George I may be a huge fan but sorry the conspiricist I am ( as people on here have called me...lol) will not let my paranoias click on links from people I do not know...sorry....lolinfact do you know that alot of viruses come from youtube and facebook? Thank you though. Say what you want from your own mind and heart,George I know you got it in you...lol