How do you define the 1%?

[Jhhnn]

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

I merely point out that you believe in lies, rather rudely, just to get your attention, at which point you believe in them more strongly, belittle me for pointing that out.

You fail to address anything that I offered, at all, which is standard right wing denial.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

None of that is true at all. In the early years of the Great Depression, America's wealthiest more than made up for paper losses of the crash with increased purchasing power of their money, their hoard of liquidity.

Between 1929 & 1933, the value of a dollar rose by 75%, even as unemployment & bankruptcy soared. Debtors who were able to pay were put in the position that the more they paid, the more they owed in terms of value. That's deflation, and that's why it benefits wealth holders. Their balance sheets suffered, but their economic advantage grew. Credit, which the economy had depended on so strongly, nearly ceased to exist other than money already owed, and currency was so scarce that producers of goods & services would sell at a pittance to have any at all.

Irving Fisher laid it out in 1934-

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf

Today's situation is different only in the sense that both the FRB & Treasury have taken actions to counter that, actions that Repub governance would rapidly curtail.

The world's wealthiest do best when the economy is moving strongly in one direction or the other, so if it won't go up, they'll drive it down, both unconsciously with hoarding of liquidity & consciously with govt policy when they can.

Andrew Mellon typifies the effort-

Mellon became unpopular with the onset of the Great Depression. He advised President Herbert Hoover to "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."[7] Additionally, he advocated weeding out "weak" banks as a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. This "weeding out" was accomplished through refusing to lend cash to banks (taking loans and other investments as collateral), and by refusing to put more cash in circulation. He advocated spending cuts to keep the federal budget balanced, and opposed fiscal stimulus measures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_W._Mellon

His policy just made the economy worse, not better, unless you were rich, in which case it was just peachy.

 

[dank69]

Interesting that you bring up logical fallacies since you're using one yourself,
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/hasty-generalisation/

I didn't say all wealthy people exploit the weak, if that is what you are inferring. Notice the word "when"?

 

[dmcowen674]

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.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16402056/Actual_estimated_ideal_wealth_distribution.gif

Excellent post :thumbsup:

 

[soulcougher73]

Basically what dmcowen said. Once money bares no real meaning to you to live by and just becomes a tool in and of itself to make more money that bares not real meaning in your life. It is pure greed and excess for no other reason then to pad your wealth. The extra money is not needed by you. Youll never see it or use it. All the while people are starving and struggling and you are hoarding more money than you can shake a stick at.

Some people are just born that way i guess. Not compassionate.

 

[soulcougher73]

1% is a euphemism, a reference to what really is a much smaller number of people at the top. It references people whose enormous incomes are not primarily derived from work, but from ownership, from collecting economic rents. Those rents are actually taxed at extremely low rates.

It references the L curve distribution of wealth & income in this country, actually a pareto curve near the top-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/why-does-inequality-make-the-rich-feel-poorer/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ople-dont-feel-very-rich/?partner=rss&emc=rss

As Rampell points out, the difference in income at the tippy top can't be represented well on a conventional linear graph, so a log graph is employed...

This as well. 1% is just a term used to really discribe the top .1% id wager. Just easier to say and roll off the tongue than .1% is.

 

[Exterous]

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)

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.

I find it quite odd that you talk about giving back to the world and yet you appear to hold up Carnegie and Rockerfeller. Sure, they eventually gave back to the world but only after a lifetime of union busting, monopolistic practices gained by using, among other means, power and influence and general money grubbing. Carnegie was one of the most ruthless business owners of his day and there is still much controversy as to how good or evil that man was.

Meanwhile Standard Oil was clearly a popular company:

the most cruel, impudent, pitiless, and grasping monopoly that ever fastened upon a country

and Rockerfeller himself was described as:

his good side was every bit as good as his bad side was bad

Both wielded as much power and influence, if not more, as the Koch Brothers, Romney etc to gain and expand their wealth - going to great lengths to destroy/aquire other companies through any means possible (Buying railroads and charging extra to carry competitors products and offering rebates on your own)

You also say that most should be given to charity. Again - Rockerfeller should not even be included anywhere in this discussion unless it is to hold him up as an example of someone not doing this:

By the time of his death in 1937, Rockefeller's remaining fortune, largely tied up in permanent family trusts, was estimated at $1.4 billion, while the total national GDP was $92 billion

You say that you condemn those who do not give the rest away to charity and taxes after enough for the kids to have an opportunity. I should expect that you will now condemn Rockerfeller unless the $1.4billion in 1937 dollars falls within your range of 'enough for an opportunity'

So, frankly, I am curious as to why you think Carnegie and Rockerfeller were such shining examples of what leads of industry/business should be like?

 

[Exterous]

This as well. 1% is just a term used to really discribe the top .1% id wager. Just easier to say and roll off the tongue than .1% is.

Yes, lets vilify a much larger group of people then necessary simply because it is more expedient to do so...

 

[the DRIZZLE]

None of that is true at all. In the early years of the Great Depression, America's wealthiest more than made up for paper losses of the crash with increased purchasing power of their money, their hoard of liquidity.

Between 1929 & 1933, the value of a dollar rose by 75%, even as unemployment & bankruptcy soared. Debtors who were able to pay were put in the position that the more they paid, the more they owed in terms of value. That's deflation, and that's why it benefits wealth holders. Their balance sheets suffered, but their economic advantage grew. Credit, which the economy had depended on so strongly, nearly ceased to exist other than money already owed, and currency was so scarce that producers of goods & services would sell at a pittance to have any at all.

Irving Fisher laid it out in 1934-

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf

Today's situation is different only in the sense that both the FRB & Treasury have taken actions to counter that, actions that Repub governance would rapidly curtail.

The world's wealthiest do best when the economy is moving strongly in one direction or the other, so if it won't go up, they'll drive it down, both unconsciously with hoarding of liquidity & consciously with govt policy when they can.

Andrew Mellon typifies the effort-



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_W._Mellon

His policy just made the economy worse, not better, unless you were rich, in which case it was just peachy.

There are a number of things wrong with your post. First, when you talk about the wealthy, you really mean net creditors, which are not always the same thing. A retired person with a paid off home and $200,000 invested in fixed rate corporate and municipal bonds could benefit from moderate deflation. On the other hand, a rich person who is using a lot of leverage could be hurt be hurt by unexpected deflation depending on the structure of their balance sheet. (i.e. A lot of long term, fixed rate liabilities)

Second, by conflating the wealthy with net savers, you have glossed over the negative effects of inflating our way out of problems. This strategy has increased foot and fuel prices and caused other distortions in the market. It is stealing wealth from middle class retirees who worked and saved their whole lives.

Third, your argument that the rich prefer an extremely poor economy to a moderate one is complete nonsense. If there is extreme deflation and liquidation of the assets the creditors don't get paid and take nominal losses. Where as in the case of moderate deflation, they get fully repaid and get the kicker of deflation. If you draw a payoff curve for equity holders and debt holders in any asset this becomes quickly apparent.

 

[Matt1970]

I am glad we have all you people in here to decide when a person has enough money. Too bad we can't get you to have the same ideas about the Government.

 

[Anarchist420]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_W._Mellon His policy just made the economy worse, not better, unless you were rich, in which case it was just peachy.

That's only accurate in regards to Harding, as Hoover didn't take his advice.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yes, lets vilify a much larger group of people then necessary simply because it is more expedient to do so...

Well smart people understand what is being said and smart people who are 1%'ers should realize they are not the .1% people are actually talking about.

 

[dmcowen674]

Basically what dmcowen said.

Once money bares no real meaning to you to live by and just becomes a tool in and of itself to make more money that bares not real meaning in your life.

It is pure greed and excess for no other reason then to pad your wealth.

The extra money is not needed by you.

Youll never see it or use it.

You are the only person I've seen on here that gets it.

The board must be all rich folks except you and I.

 

[berzerker60]

I find it quite odd that you talk about giving back to the world and yet you appear to hold up Carnegie and Rockerfeller. Sure, they eventually gave back to the world but only after a lifetime of union busting, monopolistic practices gained by using, among other means, power and influence and general money grubbing. Carnegie was one of the most ruthless business owners of his day and there is still much controversy as to how good or evil that man was.

Meanwhile Standard Oil was clearly a popular company:

and Rockerfeller himself was described as:


Both wielded as much power and influence, if not more, as the Koch Brothers, Romney etc to gain and expand their wealth - going to great lengths to destroy/aquire other companies through any means possible (Buying railroads and charging extra to carry competitors products and offering rebates on your own)

You also say that most should be given to charity. Again - Rockerfeller should not even be included anywhere in this discussion unless it is to hold him up as an example of someone not doing this:



You say that you condemn those who do not give the rest away to charity and taxes after enough for the kids to have an opportunity. I should expect that you will now condemn Rockerfeller unless the $1.4billion in 1937 dollars falls within your range of 'enough for an opportunity'

So, frankly, I am curious as to why you think Carnegie and Rockerfeller were such shining examples of what leads of industry/business should be like?

Rockefeller and Carnegie were both real bastards most of their lives, but they did leave behind impressive legacies. The Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations have both done tons of good for the world, and they founded and funded the University of Chicago and tons of public libraries. They built their fortunes on others' miseries, but at least they gave some of it back in the end. I stuck them in since they're famous, but you're definitely right that they're not shining paragons of enlightened businessmen but rather borderline cases who at least weren't always bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie#1901.E2.80.931919:_Philanthropist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Philanthropy

I am glad we have all you people in here to decide when a person has enough money. Too bad we can't get you to have the same ideas about the Government.

It's a moral distinction. You're allowed to think my lifestyle is immoral and wrong and I'm allowed to tell you to go fuck yourself, just like the businessmen won't give a crap about my disapproval. As a citizen, though, it's how I make decisions, and what I expect everyone else to do too.

Government needs exactly as much money as it takes to fund the services that the people demand of it, with some accounting for savings during good times and excess spending during bad. It also has a role in promoting a healthy economy and society by guarding against excessive income/wealth disparity - which is a "know it when we see it" sort of situation - and keeping the most poverty-stricken alive, so wealth transfer and redistribution is a related but different reason for it to tax progressively. Those two goals are the only meaningful guidelines for government funding. Big Government isn't good or bad, Small Government isn't good or bad.

 

[nextJin]

The way the left makes it sound sometimes here even I fall into that category at times. My wife and I make about 165k a year, and get free medical from the military.

In my personal opinion the 1% are folks who were born into it or came into market at the perfect time. (Microsoft, Facebook, etc.)

 

[dmcowen674]

The way the left makes it sound sometimes here even I fall into that category at times. My wife and I make about 165k a year, and get free medical from the military.

In my personal opinion the 1% are folks who were born into it or came into market at the perfect time. (Microsoft, Facebook, etc.)

You guys are living high on the hog but you are right, you are not 1%ers.

 

[PJABBER]

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)?

You should not include Romney in your statement.

The following comes from a fact check by Politifact -

Mitt Romney has addressed the question himself, it turns out, in an interview with C-SPAN in 2006. Host Brian Lamb asked him why his father hadn't given him an inheritance.

Romney answered, "Well, he didn’t have as much as I think some people anticipated. And I did get a check from my dad when he passed away. I shouldn’t say a check, but I did inherit some funds from my dad. But I turned and gave that away to charity. In this case I gave it to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor. ... And that’s where his inheritance ended up."

According to a short history of the George W. Romney Institute of Public Management at BYU, the family provided an endowment in 1998, within a few years of George Romney's death.

So, in Romney's own words, he did "inherit some funds" from his dad. But he gave them away.

Why?

"I figured we had enough of our own," he said.

He probably did. By 1995, Romney had already led Bain Capital for more than a decade, where shrewd investments made him millions. He stepped down in 1999.

He now says he's worth somewhere between $190 million and $250 million.

How Romney got rich

"I went off on my own," Romney said at the debate. "... What I have I earned. I worked hard, the American way."

So while he didn't ultimately benefit from an inheritance, we wondered: Had Romney's parents' wealth helped build his own fortune?

There's no evidence we saw that Romney's parents helped buy him a business career. But there were certain advantages to Romney's comfortable upbringing.

Romney started college at Stanford, where his "allowance" was big enough for frequent plane tickets to sneak home to Michigan see his girlfriend, Ann, according to a recently published book by two Boston Globe journalists, "The Real Romney."

After a two-year missionary trip to France, where he lived sparely as he proselytized door-to-door, he finished his undergraduate studies at BYU, where he married Ann in 1969. He was 22, his wife 19. His parents' wedding gift? A car. Meanwhile, the students — who started a family a year later — lived in a modest, $62-a-month basement apartment, Ann later told the Boston Globe. But they didn't have to work.

"We were happy, studying hard. Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time," she said.

When the couple moved to Boston so Romney could study business and law at Harvard, his parents helped them buy a house.

It's not clear who paid for his education, but Romney wasn't exactly a struggling student: enough cash for plane tickets, a car as a wedding gift, stock that kept him from having to work, help buying a home.

What about that hard work he mentioned?

When he got back from his mission trip to France, he wanted to "accomplish things of significance," according to a quote from The Real Romney.

"I said, 'Boy, I want to do something with my life if I can.' So when I came home, I was a much better student."

At BYU, he graduated with highest honors and gave a speech at graduation. He got accepted to a recently created dual-degree program in law and business at Harvard.

Of hundreds of Romney's law and business school classmates at Harvard, just 15 earned the dual degree — which packed courses required for the two degrees into less time than earning them separately. Romney didn't just earn the degree. He graduated with honors from the law school and in the top 5 percent of his class in the business school, according to The Real Romney.

His mere presence among the elite MBA/JD earners got him heavily recruited by Boston Consulting Group. So while he passed the Michigan bar in case he needed to go back to his dad's state to work near the car industry, it wouldn't be necessary.

"(Romney) was an outstanding recruit with exceptional grades, and he was the very charming, smooth, attractive son of a former presidential candidate. So everybody was bending over backward to get their hands on him," said Charles Faris, who was with Boston Consulting Group, according to the The Real Romney.

When he started work with Boston Consulting Group, "he worked his butt off," Faris said.

The young father worked nights, weekends and traveled often, including frequent trips to Europe, the book says.

He got hired away by Bill Bain at consulting company Bain & Co., who ultimately tapped him to launch Bain Capital in 1984.

There, he made the deals that dramatically increased his wealth.

You should probably also not include the Kochs, but some wealth was passed onto them. They just took it and grew it 2,300 fold.

Recently, television personalities have claimed that the Kochs inherited all of their wealth. For example, Rachel Maddow, on her August 24th MSNBC broadcast, claimed that “because Dad’s will was awesome, [the Koch brothers] are now tied in the rankings for the ninth richest men in America.” This argument ignores the facts and denigrates the hard work of the Kochs and the employees of Koch companies in growing Koch Industries over the past 40 years.

The Kochs’ wealth is the result of hard work and the inspired leadership of Koch Industries. When Fred Koch passed away in 1967, Rock Island Oil & Refining (which would become Koch Industries) had recurring earnings the year before he died of about $4 million and a net worth of approximately $50 million. The company had 1,200 employees. These numbers are far less than the $300 million alleged, and they are exponentially smaller than Koch Industries’ current $100 billion in revenues, even considering inflation and growth in markets historically.

In fact, since 1961, when Charles Koch started working at the company, Koch Industries’ book value has increased 2,300-fold. That’s 17 times greater than the Standard & Poor’s 500 over the same period, which grew 135-fold.

Koch Industries now employs approximately 70,000 people around the world, and benefits many more individuals in each of the communities in which it operates.

This growth was not inherited growth; it was earned growth through the hard work of the Kochs and their tens of thousands of dedicated employees, as well as through the Kochs’ diligent adherence to free-market principles.

Those are the names you mentioned specifically. I think you will find most wealthy people in the United States earn their wealth through hard work and some element of business brilliance.

Then you have the various actors that our culture rewards for having above average looks and vacuous brains and the sports stars that benefit from physical abilities and diligence of a different character. Perhaps these 1%ers require an extra special look.

 

[Exterous]

Well smart people understand what is being said and smart people who are 1%'ers should realize they are not the .1% people are actually talking about.

Ah - so creating a deliberate illusion to incorrectly vilify a large group of people is ok so long as a minority of people know its not true? Even here I see very few people admitting that it is the .1% and not the entire 1% How are we supposed to know if you say 1% but really mean 0.1%? Is there some secret handshake that lets someone know that?

IMO the focus on the 1% has created a strong resistance to any change applied to the 1%. The media and detractors play it up - how the 1% is so evil, doesn't pay enough taxes, is too rich etc. But on the other side you see people who are in the lower 1% who say 'Hey - wait a damn minute here. I don't have that much money. I don't have this vast resource of wealth you keep saying I do and want to take from me.' You also see a large group of people who want to protect some of the 1% because the lower portions of the 1% are very attainable goals for them so they see an attack on the 1% as an attack on their future. There are more people to close the ranks and defend if you stick to 1%

But once we start looking at the 0.1% those arguments fall away and you'll get far more support than you would by focusing on the entire 1%
Maybe we'd get some of the change we need

They built their fortunes on others' miseries, but at least they gave some of it back in the end. I stuck them in since they're famous, but you're definitely right that they're not shining paragons of enlightened businessmen but rather borderline cases who at least weren't always bad.

Sure, but during the prime of their careers they could easily be compared to the Koch brothers and were often vilified in a similar manner. Rockerfeller didn't start most of his philanthropy until retirement. How will history judge the Koch brothers? I don't know - it probably depends on how much they have donated when they died. So far its about $600 million to (what appear to be) legitimate charities. Not enough on its own but if they drastically increased that I would imagine history would forget most of the evils and focus on the donations much the same way they have done with Rockerfeller and others over the years

 

[berzerker60]

Again, it's not (just) about how your get rich, it's about what you do once you're rich.

When it comes to getting rich, of course the successful are usually talented and hard-working, and Romney certainly has worked his butt off for many years. He's not worked his butt off hundreds of times harder per hour than a coal miner, though, and now that he's no longer working he's STILL getting hundreds of times more per hour than that coal miner.

Once rich, whether through trust fund or gritty bootstrapping, is the part that really matters, and Romney and the Kochs are front row and center in using their money to power the engine of perpetual wealth for the super-rich at the expense of everyone else. They weren't the kids who never worked a day in their lives, they're the guys who MAKE kids who never work an honest day. (Tagg Romney is a Wall Street investor type, so theoretically he works, though I have a strong suspicion he wouldn't be taking in millions and millions in investment straight out of college if it weren't for his dad, which isn't much better than a trust fund).

 

[Exterous]

I think you will find most wealthy people in the United States earn their wealth through hard work and some element of business brilliance.

About 80% of millionaires are first time affluent

Also - their savings rate pre-millionaire status is typically 2x the average American savings rate (hmm...maybe saving money has something to do with being affluent?)

 

[berzerker60]

Ah - so creating a deliberate illusion to incorrectly vilify a large group of people is ok so long as a minority of people know its not true? Even here I see very few people admitting that it is the .1% and not the entire 1% How are we supposed to know if you say 1% but really mean 0.1%? Is there some secret handshake that lets someone know that?

IMO the focus on the 1% has created a strong resistance to any change applied to the 1%. The media and detractors play it up - how the 1% is so evil, doesn't pay enough taxes, is too rich etc. But on the other side you see people who are in the lower 1% who say 'Hey - wait a damn minute here. I don't have that much money. I don't have this vast resource of wealth you keep saying I do and want to take from me.' You also see a large group of people who want to protect some of the 1% because the lower portions of the 1% are very attainable goals for them so they see an attack on the 1% as an attack on their future. There are more people to close the ranks and defend if you stick to 1%

But once we start looking at the 0.1% those arguments fall away and you'll get far more support than you would by focusing on the entire 1%

Let's not get silly, someone might not "feel" rich in the 1% but objectively that is just absurd. The top 1% of income is household $380,000 per year, top 1% of wealth is $8.4 million. Let me cry just the world's most deeply felt tears if that second beach house mortgage keeps you in the $2 million instead of $5 million Manhattan apartment. And that's on the lowest end of a sharp, exponential scale of income at the very top.

Sure, but during the prime of their careers they could easily be compared to the Koch brothers and were often vilified in a similar manner. Rockerfeller didn't start most of his philanthropy until retirement. How will history judge the Koch brothers? I don't know - it probably depends on how much they have donated when they died. So far its about $600 million to (what appear to be) legitimate charities. Not enough on its own but if they drastically increased that I would imagine history would forget most of the evils and focus on the donations much the same way they have done with Rockerfeller and others over the years

Agreed, they might well end up giving away their money, curing some types of cancer, funding space exploration, and being some of history's greatest philanthropists, in which case I'd judge them much much higher. For now, they're using their fortunes to crush unions and promote policy I find awful rather than help people.

 

[soulcougher73]

Ah - so creating a deliberate illusion to incorrectly vilify a large group of people is ok so long as a minority of people know its not true? Even here I see very few people admitting that it is the .1% and not the entire 1% How are we supposed to know if you say 1% but really mean 0.1%? Is there some secret handshake that lets someone know that?

IMO the focus on the 1% has created a strong resistance to any change applied to the 1%. The media and detractors play it up - how the 1% is so evil, doesn't pay enough taxes, is too rich etc. But on the other side you see people who are in the lower 1% who say 'Hey - wait a damn minute here. I don't have that much money. I don't have this vast resource of wealth you keep saying I do and want to take from me.' You also see a large group of people who want to protect some of the 1% because the lower portions of the 1% are very attainable goals for them so they see an attack on the 1% as an attack on their future. There are more people to close the ranks and defend if you stick to 1%

But once we start looking at the 0.1% those arguments fall away and you'll get far more support than you would by focusing on the entire 1%
Maybe we'd get some of the change we need



Sure, but during the prime of their careers they could easily be compared to the Koch brothers and were often vilified in a similar manner. Rockerfeller didn't start most of his philanthropy until retirement. How will history judge the Koch brothers? I don't know - it probably depends on how much they have donated when they died. So far its about $600 million to (what appear to be) legitimate charities. Not enough on its own but if they drastically increased that I would imagine history would forget most of the evils and focus on the donations much the same way they have done with Rockerfeller and others over the years

I think we all know were talking about the .1% when we talk about the 1%. This isnt rocket science. In usual GOP fashion you deflect by attacking a word vs. the actual message being put forth. Same you guys do with context.

Also even a true actual 1%'er still has a lot of money. I mean hell just think of it. If you are an actual 1% there is 99% of the population doing worse then you. Must be delusional to somehow think you are not well off.

 

[Exterous]

top 1% of wealth is $8.4 million.

Is it now? Where do you get your data from? The US census data puts the number far closer to $1.5 million as the start of the 1% wealth

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0717.pdf

For reference $1.5 million is the amount required for a retiree to provide the US median income during a 30 year retirement. It may sound like a lot but in practice having $1.5 million for retirement should be a goal

Let me cry just the world's most deeply felt tears if that second beach house mortgage keeps you in the $2 million instead of $5 million Manhattan apartment. And that's on the lowest end of a sharp, exponential scale of income at the very top.

If we are talking wealth I am more inclined to agree with you. Income - not so much (As I believe I have made clear earlier in this thread)

In usual GOP fashion you deflect by attacking a word vs. the actual message being put forth. Same you guys do with context.

Sorry for attacking a figure that you posted that is off by a factor of 100. Perhaps I didn't understand how difficult it is for you to type a '.' or for you to get anywhere near the figure you were actually referring to. Heaven forbid you spend a fraction of a second to be accurate in your descriptions.

I also very clearly stated that I am attacking the use of 1% instead of .1% because I think that doing so is a barrier to getting the change we need.

Since you seem kind of slow I will put this a different way - I was trying to make it easier to tax the super wealthy more! (Yet somehow this + stating on the forum that capital gains tax should increase + my pro-chocie, pro-gay, pro-stemcell research, anti-teaching evolution, moderate stance on unions etc puts me into the GOP party in your handbook? )

Also even a true actual 1%'er still has a lot of money. I mean hell just think of it. If you are an actual 1% there is 99% of the population doing worse then you. Must be delusional to somehow think you are not well off.

Then why all the complaining in America about wealth? I mean you are still better off than ~98% of the rest of the world. Everyone in American complaining about American 1%ers must be delusional to not realize how well off their are.

 

[dank69]

...

Sorry for attacking a figure that you posted that is off by a factor of 100. Perhaps I didn't understand how difficult it is for you to type a '.' or for you to get anywhere near the figure you were actually referring to. Heaven forbid you spend a fraction of a second to be accurate in your descriptions.

I also very clearly stated that I am attacking the use of 1% instead of .1% because I think that doing so is a barrier to getting the change we need.

Since you seem kind of slow I will put this a different way - I was trying to make it easier to tax the super wealthy more! (Yet somehow this + stating on the forum that capital gains tax should increase + my pro-chocie, pro-gay, pro-stemcell research, anti-teaching evolution, moderate stance on unions etc puts me into the GOP party in your handbook? )



...

There's some low hanging fruit right there. I bolded the second statement because it is delicious.

 

[diesbudt]

To me the 1% are the people who only get 1 answer out of 100 questions correct.

The current name for these people are Congressmen/Congresswomen.