How do you define the 1%?

[a777pilot]

Jhhnn, Have you ever played that Super Ball lotto? If yes, why?

 

[Smoblikat]

I dont, to think about such things is irrelevant. Why stop at 1%, why not get REALLY pissed at the top .1%, or better yet the top .001%. Are we talking about the top 1% of the population (100%) or are we talking about the top 1% of the upper class/middle class only, because the numbers will be different. Why not talk about the 1% at the top of the "99%", why dont they do anything?

 

[boomerang]

A definition of the 1% is meaningless. Instead of wasting thinking power on a question like that, put that power to work coming to the realization that politicians have created a convenient scapegoat. It takes two to tango. Politicians along with powerful people have created the system we have in place. The 1% are only half of the equation. Round them up, string them up and then confiscate everything they had and there will still be a 1%. There will always be a 1%. This realization is going to be a bitter pill to swallow for many.

We'd be better off going after the politicians. To generalize and simplify, they, the politicians relaxed the laws and they wrote the tax code. Without them, the 1% lose much power. It is very handy to some to have everyone so polarized. I believe they've succeeded beyond their expectations.

You've identified the wrong enemy but you had help with that decision. Guess who pointed you in the direction you're running?

 

[berzerker60]

The whole point of the 99%/1% meme is the absolutely absurd amount of wealth owned by a tiny, tiny fraction of the country, and that all of the economic growth of the entire country over the past several decades has gone to this tiny tiny group instead of to the country at large. There will (obviously) always be a 1%, and they'll always own a much larger percent of the nation's wealth than 1%, and that's fine. But it's a matter of degrees, and right now the scales are WAY WAY off what most of us are okay with.

We all want a meritocratic society, for hard work to be proportionately rewarded. That's not the case, though, unless you seriously think Mitt Romney works hundreds and hundreds of times harder per hour than a coal miner in West Virginia. Even that would be kind of okay if Romney (as a representative of his class) was a Bill Gates type, who spent his time giving away his excess money to charities and solving big world problems. Instead he (and most 1%ers) have set up the system so they can't fail, and instead keep accumulating money - golden parachutes for failed execs, huge bonuses for CEOs while cutting jobs, a tax system that rewards already having a huge amount of money sitting around that you're not working for.

It's not about the exact number - 1%, 2%, .1% - it's about the incredibly concentration of wealth and power generated by the hard work of millions into a very small number of hands that work hard, but not THAT hard, and are manipulating the system with that wealth and power.

Look at these charts and try to pretend it's not troubling:
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1

 

[Jhhnn]

Jhhnn, Have you ever played that Super Ball lotto? If yes, why?

Irrelevant, distractional.

 

[nanette1985]

Interesting to see all your thoughts. I would say that the kind of person you are thinking of is not defined by income or by assets - but by access to power of some sort

Not all powerful people are financially wealthy - but most of them are.

 

[Doppel]

People that money is no longer a concern or object in their lives.

Just a few examples below:

Gasoline going to $5 has no bearing on them whatsoever for example other than to make them even more record profits.

Rent going up $65 a month more does not affect them in the least other than to pad the portfolio of the management company raising the prices and making more record profits for them.

Groceries going up has no affect, can still purchase whatever you feel like and have enough to pay bills.

Since your Dad made the 1%, you must be a 1%er unless you were disowned somehow.

Wrong. If you knew anything about these people, or in fact anything about anything, you'd realize that they still have concerns about money and most of them don't even feel as wealthy as they demonstrably are. But then facts never really were your thing.

 

[a777pilot]

Irrelevant, distractional.

Well, I will defer to the vast knowledge of irrelevance and distraction by liberals.

The fact that I now know you want to be rich or at least richer than you are, makes your position on wealth and taxes laughable.

 

[Smoblikat]

Well, I will defer to the vast knowledge of irrelevance and distraction by liberals.

The fact that I now know you want to be rich or at least richer than you are, makes your position on wealth and taxes laughable.

I want to have more money than I currently do, does that mean my views are ignored also? if thats the case then every American except you has nothing to contribute to any discussion.

 

[Jhhnn]

A definition of the 1% is meaningless. Instead of wasting thinking power on a question like that, put that power to work coming to the realization that politicians have created a convenient scapegoat. It takes two to tango. Politicians along with powerful people have created the system we have in place. The 1% are only half of the equation. Round them up, string them up and then confiscate everything they had and there will still be a 1%. There will always be a 1%. This realization is going to be a bitter pill to swallow for many.

We'd be better off going after the politicians. To generalize and simplify, they, the politicians relaxed the laws and they wrote the tax code. Without them, the 1% lose much power. It is very handy to some to have everyone so polarized. I believe they've succeeded beyond their expectations.

You've identified the wrong enemy but you had help with that decision. Guess who pointed you in the direction you're running?

Politicians didn't create the the 99% meme, at all, but rather people who are the 99%.

And if you choose to blame the politicians, it's like blaming the hand puppet.

Of course there will always be people at the top. The real question is if our relationship with them is symbiotic, or if they're preying upon us. When they're getting richer by leaps & bounds, pulling away from the rest of us, it's obviously not the former.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, I will defer to the vast knowledge of irrelevance and distraction by liberals.

The fact that I now know you want to be rich or at least richer than you are, makes your position on wealth and taxes laughable.

You know nothing other than what you want to believe.

How does working & middle class people wanting to be richer, to achieve some security & ease, relate to people who already have that in ways we can only imagine & whose greed drives them for even more?

It doesn't, other than in righties' usual false equivalence.

 

[Exterous]

I was struck by the disparity of the top 1% income earners and the top 1% of wealth holders. According to a slightly outdated (but best source that I could find) FedRes survey only about half of the top wealth holders come from the top 1% of income earners.

So - how does one get into the top 1% of wealth holders? (Warning, rambling wonderment and math below: )

Well, if you start at age 20 you'd only need to save $4,000 a year to reach it by 65 and $7,000 to make it by 57 (The average age of a millionaire in the US)

If you wait until 27 then you'd need to save $6,500 a year to reach it by 65 which is about 21% of the average income for a 27 year old. To reach it by 57 you'd need to save $12,000 a year.

Its a bit easier for those who went to college (student loans aside). The average college grad makes $41,000 a year right out of college and they would need to save $5,600 (14%) to reach it by 65 and $10,200 to reach it by 57. If we use a rough calculation about half way into your career that continuing contribution will drop to 8% or 15% of your salary

The median age in the US is 37 years old. The median savings for retirement in the US is $26,000. The reported median income seems to vary but most hover in the $46,000 range. Taking these numbers the 37 year old would need to save $25,000 (54%!) a year to make it by 57 and $13,000 (28%) to make it by 65

It gets a bit fuzzier for the top income earners. Someone making $250,000 a year is typically in their early 40, say around 42, would need $21,400 (9%) to make it by 65 and $45,000 (18%) to make it by 65. For someone making $350,000 at this age it is only 6% and 13%. Yet someone making $350,000 only has about a 50% chance to make it into the top 1% of net wealth holders despite the lowest entry fee.

TLDR:
-START SAVING EARLY
-Americans, even those in the top 1% of income earners, don't save enough
-Despite the lowest percent of income saved required to become a top 1% of wealth holder only about half of the top 1% income earners do so

She references those further up the foodchain, at or in the vertical section of the curve.

Somewhat - she mentions it for the top 5% of earners which includes those below $380,000 still in the range where it is entirely possible to be dealing with financial problems, esp regarding housing, in many places in the US

 

[a777pilot]

I want to have more money than I currently do, does that mean my views are ignored also? if thats the case then every American except you has nothing to contribute to any discussion.

No not at all. But don't tell me you think all those that are richer than you are evil when you want to be rich also.

 

[a777pilot]

You know nothing other than what you want to believe.

How does working & middle class people wanting to be richer, to achieve some security & ease, relate to people who already have that in ways we can only imagine & whose greed drives them for even more?

It doesn't, other than in righties' usual false equivalence.

There are a lot of very rich people who did not start out rich at all, especially here in America. I'm sure you can name quite a few.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by Braznor
History has come full circle. America hates rich people!

The problem is now the rich have incentive to keep wages and hours down for everyone else, at least those who earn their wealth from boardroom associations.

As the 99% join together against them they better start losing that "incentive to keep wages and hours down for everyone else".

 

[unokitty]

How do you define the 1%?

I'll offer a personal definition of the 1%. I don't mean for this to be a universal definition. But it is the way that I view it. First, some demographics:

"... nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits."

For me, 1% is a construct that is used by politicians to divide people.

As you can see from the above quote, about 50% of the people pay income taxes. And about 50% receive government benefits.

Politicians want to get re-elected by promising the 50% that receive benefits that they will get more. That is, that they are entitled to more.

And the reason that they aren't getting more benefits is that the people that pay taxes don't pay enough.

Rather than point out that only 50% of the population pays taxes, politicians created the 1% construct.

The reality is that if you work and pay taxes, most people on government aid will view you as the 1%.

When a politician says that he wants to "spread the wealth around," what they really mean is that I'm going to take more money from working people and give it to the people that don't work.

Though, they say it in code, what they say is that the reason that you're not getting enough welfare is that the 1% isn't paying their fair share.

After all, isn't that how politicians get re-elected?

Uno

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Anyone that makes more than McOwned.

 

[IGBT]

earners and achievers...always are targets for the parasites/envious/social racketeers/social justice shake down mob.

 

[Jadow]

I define the 1% as people a hell of a lot richer than me. I have no ill will against them, am appreciative that they pay more than their fair share of taxes, and create jobs.

I know a couple 1%ers both over 100 million net worth, and they are both incredibly friendly nice people who give a lot to charity and make the community better.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'll offer a personal definition of the 1%. I don't mean for this to be a universal definition. But it is the way that I view it. First, some demographics:

"... nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits."

For me, 1% is a construct that is used by politicians to divide people.

As you can see from the above quote, about 50% of the people pay income taxes. And about 50% receive government benefits.

Politicians want to get re-elected by promising the 50% that receive benefits that they will get more. That is, that they are entitled to more.

And the reason that they aren't getting more benefits is that the people that pay taxes don't pay enough.

Rather than point out that only 50% of the population pays taxes, politicians created the 1% construct.

The reality is that if you work and pay taxes, most people on government aid will view you as the 1%.

When a politician says that he wants to "spread the wealth around," what they really mean is that I'm going to take more money from working people and give it to the people that don't work.

Though, they say it in code, what they say is that the reason that you're not getting enough welfare is that the 1% isn't paying their fair share.

After all, isn't that how politicians get re-elected?

Uno

Ferguson merely repeats the lie that Righties fall for every time, equating federal income tax with all taxes.

We've been through this many, many times, and Righties still go for it, because it panders to what they want to believe. They want to believe that welfare Moms are pulling us down, rather than America's wealthiest pushing us down, stripping America's assets to invest offshore, to hoard in a hundred other ways.

They have a very difficult time believing that the people they admire the most, whom they adore & revere, nearly sanctify, America's wealthiest, are the driving force behind our economic decline.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

No matter how many times I post this, and other information like it, they'll go down on something like the Ferguson piece faster than a cheap hooker goes down for a Benjamin. They live to slobber the knobs of America's wealthiest.

 

[Smoblikat]

No not at all. But don't tell me you think all those that are richer than you are evil when you want to be rich also.

When did I say they were evil?

 

[blackangst1]

Here's how I define being a 1%'r:

 

[unokitty]

No matter how many times I post this, and other information like it, they'll go down on something like the Ferguson piece faster than a cheap hooker goes down for a Benjamin. They live to slobber the knobs of America's wealthiest.

Must be difficult to be you. I mean being convinced that you have perfect knowledge.

And yet, you find out over and over that not everyone sees everything the same way that you do.

And even though you do your best to convince them of your perfectness, they find neither your insults nor your platitudes convincing.

You have my sympathy.

Uno

 

[berzerker60]

Being/getting rich doesn't make you evil. Doing evil things while rich makes you evil. Everyone wants to be rich, the question is once you're rich, do you spend your life giving back to the world (Gates, Carnegie, Rockefeller, many more: http://online.barrons.com/article/SB125935466529866955.html#articleTabs_article=1) or do you just use your power and influence to make the game even easier for yourself and ensure your kids never work an honest day in their lives (Romney, the Kochs, most senators, Wall Street tycoons in general)?

If I was super rich tomorrow, I'd definitely buy some nice things, but you can only spend so much in a lifetime and plenty of the 1% are way, way, past that point. After establishing enough to give my kids all the opportunities possible, I don't want them wasting their lives as trust fund babies partying around the globe. The rest should go to charity and taxes, where it will actually do good for the world. I judge real people by those same standards, and condemn those who act otherwise.

Again, though, it's not that some people are rich and others poor that's the problem for anyone (except the very fringe far lefties, almost none of which even exist anymore in America). The problem is that among the 1% are people rich beyond conception, rich beyond the wildest possible uses of money and their rewards are completely disconnected from merit. That they then bitch and moan when workers ask for a slice of the growing American economy, complain that they're unfairly persecuted when asked to sacrifice somewhat for this country that set the stage for their success and guarded them along the way, is the crux of the problem.

Here's from a survey of Americans asking what they thought the wealth disparity is in the country, what they think it ought to be, and how it actually is:

 

[Matt1970]

Must be difficult to be you. I mean being convinced that you have perfect knowledge.

And yet, you find out over and over that not everyone sees everything the same way that you do.

And even though you do your best to convince them of your perfectness, they find neither your insults nor your platitudes convincing.

You have my sympathy.

Uno

That Jhhnn for ya. He believes the rich want to keep the middle class down but fails to realize simple economics. When the middle class makes more money, the rich make more money. He actually thinks that the rich will somehow benefit by a failed economy. You just can't teach that kind of stuff.