It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who are the 1%?

page: 8
52
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I know.




posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


We should be, but I don't think we all are.

The same people that tell me they aren't communists or socialists spend a lot of time defending socialism and communism. Example:

My post history in beezer's thread should illustrate this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=projectvxn

Then when I say that I am careful of who I stand next to I am lambasted for being a "corporate shill" for not agreeing with their defense of these failed systems.

I can't be critical of OWS because apparently the only people who have a right to free speech are leftists, and if I dare step out of line they come out in droves to accuse me of shilling for the banks when most of the membership that have known me a long time know that I am anything but a shill for anyone.

It's pathetic. They can't win on the merits of arguments so they settle for name calling.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by mastahunta
 


I have addressed it. Time and time again.

And not just recently either. But throughout my entire posting history.

Maybe you should get acquainted with it.

I never called YOU a communist or a socialist. You've made clear that you are not and I accept that.

But OWS IS run by communists and socialists. How do I know? Because they use the same symbolism arguments and tactics.

Here it is from the horse's mouth occupywallst.org
Also from the horses mouth:

Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.
occupywallst.org...




Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.


Set the minimum wage to $20 an hour you know, because a small business owner can afford $20 for some jack ass kid to push buttons or flip burgers. That's some serious economic insight right there.
I agree with the $20 part being stupid, but you pretty much ignored the other 3/4ths of that demand.



Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.


And the crown jewel of socialism...A Single payer system.
You should try giving out actual reasons instead of just screaming socialism.


And if they don't comply...Violence:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Yes, a poll taken by anonymous people on a website definitely represents the whole of the Occupy Movement.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Evolutionsend
 


government rules regulations and business sanctions this country is suppose to have a free market but its anything but and that is why you are seeing business and prosperity stifled.


Worse yet, they only regulate the small businesses. In many cases there are built in exemptions for wholly-owned corporations with a certain amount of assets.

There are added costs, added risks, added oversight, and added regulations for a small business, but big corps are immune to it, because they lobby the politicians writing the laws.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
THEY ARE socialists. And I have proven that on this very page.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Man, the rich folks sure screamed for a socialistic approach to bailing their butts out of the fire when they got into trouble, didn’t they? Yet the common man is on his own when he gets in trouble. I guess I missed the part of our Constitution where it says that its one set of rules for the rich and a second set for the rest of us, eh?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


I don't think you comprehend the point. If mom and pop are in the upper 1% with only $300,000 net worth, that means that everyone below that is under $300,000, which isn't a huge number, but it's not small either. Everyone above that $300,000, is higher than $300,000, and that is only 1% of the population. The data shows, that only 1% of the population is actually upper-middle, to upper class. What this means, is that the other 99%, are middle or lower class. It actually shows that the economy is massively off balance.

If you look at it from this perspective though, I only have to make $300,000 to be in that 1%, it looks like that's a reasonable goal, and that there's no problems. A much more enlightening bit of data would be, how much money is in the upper 1%, and how much is in the lower 99%, total. How does that make the income look at the 50% level? Probably pretty low.
edit on 11-10-2011 by Evolutionsend because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


the difference is and is why they outsource break the chains of the power of us government like they have what is the result?

prosperity i dont fault them no one should they should be emulating them



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


They are manipulated. We all are, but some worse than others. There is very little original thought, just regurgitation of publicized material. Education sucks, and Media is so influential it is almost impossible to not be manipulated. Plus in this fast-moving society, there is barely time to make an honest living and spend a little time with family, there is no longer time for research and reading and self-education. We are forced to accept the glossing over of history as fact and the soundbites as news.

Don't hate the folks that can't argue with you intelligently, feel sorry for them. They are fully indoctrinated to their particular flavor of the false reality, and they will likely never change. Truth be told, you and I are also indoctrinated to some varying degree, we just can't see it.

Allegory of the Cave, no matter how you go back and try to educate them, those in the cave will just never understand. They can't.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


After he lost his argument with me he changed the subject to one that he could win, and troll with.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I have read this thread title as I Am The 1% a few times tonight. I have to blink in order to see it for what it is.

I think the 1% spiritual.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Evolutionsend
 


I was responding more to his experience in the Beezer thread, but you do point out the fact that none of us are immune to it. When our own version of facts is disputed effectively, then we have to either abandon our view, cut and run, attack on other basis, or change the rules of the debate.

Ego is a powerful thing. Can't we all just get along?
Seriously, this is why the "We are the 99%" is an ingenious ploy!! We really are the 99%, and while we may not entirely agree, we can all create a common enemy and blame them! At least it is the Corportists and not the Jews.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


To me, $300,000 is upper middle class. That means it should fall somewhere between 60-75%, not 99%. That's my point. Truth be told, it's the upper, upper class that's the problem. They've got to have a ton of money to be depriving it all from everyone that's 99% or lower. I would like to see the whole thing graphed based on population percentage at a certain wealth amount. That would really shed some light on the issues, and maybe help tax makers to come up with a better way to tax.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


After he lost his argument with me he changed the subject to one that he could win, and troll with.


What argument did i lose to you?

And I'm a lot of things. But a troll has never been one of them.

I suppose anyone who disagrees with you is a troll then?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


You never responded to a post I made a few pages ago, demonstrating how your information shows that there is a top heavy economy in this country. You changed the subject and ignored the post. That makes you a troll, because you wanted to keep something going.


Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Actually, your data could be interpreted to mean that the fact that middle class people with $300,000 of assets are in the upper 1% shows that the most wealthy people in this country have an unbalanced amount of money, which sounds close to the truth. If many wealthy party's at the top had a lot of money, it would shove those with $300,000 lower on the scale, but the scale of people with less than $300,000 goes all the way up to 99% of America. Your data, depending on interpretation, does show that America's economy is top heavy, but the assets are even more off than we thought.

If it sounds confusing, think of it in terms of a graph. Beyond the upper 1% the graph must go upward very quickly, or there just isn't enough money in the economy to go around, which probably isn't the case.

Some better information would be to take the total of money in that 1%, and compare it to the rest of the money in the economy, the 99%. Depending on the results of the new data and comparison, we may need to revise the 99% vs the 1% statement.
edit on 11-10-2011 by Evolutionsend because: (no reason given)


That ended the argument.

Let me clarify this some more. If the number at 99% is 300,000, and we know the numbers around 100%, the richest person in America, is in the millions or billions, it means that saying the upper 1% is the problem does not accurately describe it, and the number of money in the hands of a very few, is even higher than we think.
edit on 11-10-2011 by Evolutionsend because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
1 percent and 99 percent just sounds better...and is exaggerated to show a message. You people don't understand lmao!!



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Evolutionsend
 


I agree $300,000 is barely even upper middle class. I'd love to make that much, but it wouldn't make me anywhere near rich!!

Most of my close friends and family earn between $75k and $150k combined family income, and they struggle to get buy with mortgages, student loans, taxes, daycare, etc. With extra income comes extra expenses. I have other friends that make $30k to $50k and there isn't much difference in lifestyle.

A decent 3BR/2BA home here in Tallahassee is going to take $2400 a year in real estate taxes, $1500 a year in home-owners insurance, and $2400 a year in utilities, if not more. So there goes $6300 right off the bat. A degree from a major University is going to run $30k, which translates to $400 student loan payments or $4800 a year (assuming one person), so there is $11,800 gone. Income tax on anything over $50k is going to be about 30%, so figure a couple making $70k is really only going to bring home $50k after Social Security, Medicare, and Federal Tax. If your state has income tax then take off another 5-8%. Say $70k salary is $46k bring home, and then $11,800 comes off for your average home and student loan, so now you have $34k. If it takes both parents to work to reach $70k, then figure $150 week per kid for daycare. thats $15k per year (more if you have infants!). So $34k is down to $19k. If you have a car payment, even for a typical used $10k car, figure $300 month or $3600 per year per adult, so $19k is now $12k. Even at a conservative commute, you can expect $40 per week in gas, or $4160 per year, so your $12k is now $8k. If you have family Health Insurance through a very good employer plan it is going to be $400 a month or so. Your $8k just became $3k.

So, who can eat, go to movies, buy clothes, and shoes, and invest in a 401k, save for emergencies, handle the incidentals like a leaky pipe or a flat tire, and live an overall comfortable lifestyle on $250 per month actual useable income?

$70k for an average family in an average house, with an average car and conservative estimates of student loans.

Now, what if you have multiple kids or both partners have student loans or your hours get cut or your Health Insurance goes up?

Owe, but wait a minute........ my figures assumed your house was paid for and you were just paying taxes and insurance? What about the actual mortgage payment? Where is that coming from? A second job perhaps? But does that mean additional commuting and additional daycare.

Sorry, but $70k to $100k per year is barely middle class for a working family of 4 with student loans. $300k is almost comfortable, but nowhere near rich!



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by HazyChestNutz
 


I understand that perfectly. The purpose of the thread originally was to sling mud at OWS and claim that they're trying to target good working people, because of the data put with that statement. I'm just saying the statement is obviously not meant to be taken literally.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
The actual problem is not the top 1%, it’s the top .1%…

sociology.ucsc.edu...
The Lower Half of the Top 1%
The 99th to 99.5th percentiles largely include physicians, attorneys, upper middle management, and small business people who have done well. Everyone's tax situation is, of course, a little different. On earned income in this group, we can figure somewhere around 25% to 30% of total pre-tax income will go to Federal, State, and Social Security taxes, leaving them with around $250k to $300k post tax. This group makes extensive use of 401-k's, SEP-IRA's, Defined Benefit Plans, and other retirement vehicles, which defer taxes until distribution during retirement. Typical would be yearly contributions in the $50k to $100k range, leaving our elite working group with yearly cash flows of $175k to $250k after taxes, or about $15k to $20k per month.

The Upper Half of the Top 1%
Membership in this elite group is likely to come from being involved in some aspect of the financial services or banking industry, real estate development involved with those industries, or government contracting. Some hard working and clever physicians and attorneys can acquire as much as $15M-$20M before retirement but they are rare. Those in the top 0.5% have incomes over $500k if working and a net worth over $1.8M if retired. The higher we go up into the top 0.5% the more likely it is that their wealth is in some way tied to the investment industry and borrowed money than from personally selling goods or services or labor as do most in the bottom 99.5%. They are much more likely to have built their net worth from stock options and capital gains in stocks and real estate and private business sales, not from income which is taxed at a much higher rate. These opportunities are largely unavailable to the bottom 99.5%.



sociology.ucsc.edu...
But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand.

The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

edit on 10/11/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


This is why this movement should be about ENDING THE MUTHA $&@( FED not wallstreet.

this is just a way to pit people against each other.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by The Old American
 


I don't think you comprehend the point. If mom and pop are in the upper 1% with only $300,000 net worth, that means that everyone below that is under $300,000, which isn't a huge number, but it's not small either. Everyone above that $300,000, is higher than $300,000, and that is only 1% of the population. The data shows, that only 1% of the population is actually upper-middle, to upper class. What this means, is that the other 99%, are middle or lower class. It actually shows that the economy is massively off balance.

If you look at it from this perspective though, I only have to make $300,000 to be in that 1%, it looks like that's a reasonable goal, and that there's no problems. A much more enlightening bit of data would be, how much money is in the upper 1%, and how much is in the lower 99%, total. How does that make the income look at the 50% level? Probably pretty low.
edit on 11-10-2011 by Evolutionsend because: (no reason given)


No, I comprehend the point of OWS perfectly. They all signed a contract they shouldn't have. They got student loans for $100k for that Bachelor of Fine Arts degree, make $25k a year and bought a $150k house, and constantly get jobs flipping burgers, but feel they are entitled to $20 an hour doing so. Then they blame "the rich" for their plight all because nobody should prosper if the OWS whiners don't.

If they don't mean everyone making over X amount, then they need to stop with the little play on words crap and say what they mean. Because every time they say "the 1%", I'm going to bring in the fact that the 1% includes small business people. You know, the nation's largest employers.

Nobody is owed a job. Nobody is owed a wage. Everyone is owed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But nobody is guaranteed happiness. Every single person in the U.S. has a chance to pursue anything they want to. It's nobody else's fault if they don't achieve it. It isn't my fault, or your fault, or that lady over there's fault that some guy is in debt $100k in student loans and didn't get a high-paying job from it. Yet they expect you, and me, and that lady over there to pay for it.

Well I have my own bills to pay for, thank you. I'm tired of being expected to pay someone else's because they didn't know how to be responsible for themselves.

/TOA



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join