View Poll Results: Are you in the 1% or 99%

Voters
52. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1%

    9 17.31%
  • 99%

    43 82.69%
Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 205

Thread: The 99 % or 1%?

  1. #161
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Can I have all your money?
    yeah that seems to be what lurks behind all the high sound BS they spew



  2. #162
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,416
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    so what is your solution
    You know, I have a SYSTEM that I think would work, but I don't see a path to it from where we are.

    This is gonna jangle your sensibilities, but hear me out and pretend we're talking purely hypothetically.

    I think a better way would be extremely progressive taxes.

    Not to take from those who have to give to the have nots, but to create an environment where over certain levels, acquiring more leads to steeply diminishing returns.

    The goal being to foster an environment that by nature leaves fruit on the trees for the next guy.

    You've heard me talk about rent. I think residential real estate as primarily a commodity is an unhealthy situation. I think in residential properties anything over one income property should be so steeply taxed that three or four just wouldn't be worth the effort. I believe that things that human beings NEED should be minimally commoditized(sic?). Homes should be domiciles first and assets second, if that. (And the one income residential property can be a hundred unit apartment complex. Rental properties DO serve a function, but should serve a more transitory or temporary function than the permanent treadmill they are for far too many today)

    Economics is complex and far too much like a cross between meteorology and religion to me. I'm an auto-didact, with a way above average head for concepts, but every effort to acquire details and the language encounters a system more akin to astrology than engineering. WAY too many "will"s where "could"s or "may"s would be much more correct terms.

    All that said, while I think something along these lines would be a better way, I don't really see a way to get there from here that wouldn't suck.

    But things are already starting to suck for more and more people.

    Its not going to get better if we just ignore it and hope it goes away.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  3. #163
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Going after the rich won't make them richer, but I don't think the protestors realize this.
    I think the way you're looking at it is too simplistic. It isn't just a question of whether or not to "go after the rich". There are changes that need to be made. Serious changes. Changes that the rich certainly don't want. But that doesn't mean taking away their money or starting some kind of a war against the rich or something. We should be looking for the policies that are giving them unfair advantages over everybody else and removing those. That isn't doing anything malicious against the rich, it's just fixing flaws in our policy.

    For example, say that you have an industry where two companies totally dominate. They are big enough to easily prevent any new competitors from entering. Since they have a comfortable control over the market, there is no reason for them to try to undercut each other's prices or compete for the best resources on salary. They both know that 50% of a market where they make $10 per transaction is much better than 100% of a market where they make $0.01 per transaction. So, they both just let prices stay high and salaries low. That isn't some god given right they have to take everybody's money like that, that's just a flaw in the market. Every economist ever will tell you that a situation like that is one where government is supposed to step in and break up the companies dominating the market into smaller companies to restore competition. Adam Smith himself wrote chapters on how important that is. Everybody knows that, but the politicians opt not to correct it because those companies put major resources into lobbying and they make a big stink if the politicians try to fix it, and the public is so oblivious and disorganized that they don't seem to care about the issue one way or another, so there is no pressure to fix it. So, they just go on sucking billions of dollars out of your pocketbook. It's the opposite of a free market. It's more like feudalism. To me, what OWS is is people starting organize to put their interests forwards so that the politicians see that they need to look after not just the interests of the corporations, but the interests of the people too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    US were not number 1 in the 1990s. Countries like Brunei, and Luxembourg was in front of the US, but also Switzerland. In fact US is ahead of Switzerland right now and US has certainly performed better than Europe. GDP: GDP per capita, PPP, current international dollars
    No, no. Not GDP per capita. Standard of living. GDP per capita is a whole different thing. GDP per capita doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the standard of living. For example, if you have a country of 100 people, one of them is makes a billion dollars a year and the other 99 make $0 per year and are starving to death, your GDP per capita would be $10 million, but your standard of living would be amongst the worst in the world. GDP that is overwhelmed by income inequality does you no good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    The median wage you say is too low, do not include a lot of factors. Median income is 44K. Employers pay a 7% payroll tax, 47K. Benefits, 74K Earnings and Benefits - Firms Providing Benefits - Workers, Retirement, Industry, Private, Characteristics, and Average - StateUniversity

    Now, we are up to 74K, if we add all remaining factors such as capital gains taxes, business taxes, property taxes, regulations it should be approximately 90K. The remainder is profit.
    No, it's $44k total compensation. The differential between $44k and $97k does include capital expenditures. So, for example, rent and electricity bills. The substantial majority of corporations actually pay no income taxes at all. So that pretty much just leaves profit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Income taxes has dropped dramatically the last 30 years, income inequality has increased, the number of people working has dropped, but revenue hasn't. Wierd. That is because they are getting their income from hidden taxes.
    Not sure I'm following. Can you explain more? Income from hidden taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Increased benefits has also had a dampening effect on median wages.
    Benefits haven't actually increased, they've decreased. Fewer people have health insurance benefits than in the past, although hopefully that will change direction as the health care reform comes into effect. What changed wasn't the amount of benefits people get, but the amount the health insurance companies are charging for those benefits. That's just another example of what I'm talking about- companies are taking more and more profits and it is sucking us dry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    The reason I find this movement scary is because I know that wages in the US are going to go down soon. People are complaining about wages not going up fast enough, what will they say when their wages go down.
    We will stop it. That's the bottom line. We aren't going to let them keep radically enriching themselves while giving us sob stories about how they need to lower our compensation. We're done permitting that. The rigged game is over. By all means, if things go badly for the economy and everybody loses money, that's something you just suck up and deal with. But when they're telling you that you need to work twice as hard for half as much money and meanwhile they're off to the Bahamas with billions of dollars, that's a no go.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    That is incorrect. GDP per capita has increased by 160% since 1960.
    GDP per capita in the US in 1960 was $14,133 adjusted for inflation. The US's GDP per capita today is $47,184. So, that's a 333% increase. It was higher before the crash I guess, that's when I got the 400% figure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Your median income figure is probably correct, but average income with capital gains has only gone up by 65%.
    Not sure what your argument is. 65% in average income is still really terrible. But median income is the one that matters. Average just gets distorted by outliers with absurd amounts of income, it doesn't reflect how well actual people are doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Those numbers are definitly incorrect. As you can see here
    That graph ends at 2005... Still recovering from the dot com crash.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    You are really somewhat part of the problem. You like so many Americans have been given false information about what is happening to the American economy. I think the biggest failure is education. Students should learn about this in the school, and be given proper unbiased information. Most people would accept all your figures, because they have no clue about the real numbers.
    As you can see above, it turns out that you're the ones that has the numbers a bit mixed up. No offense, you're definitely way more informed than most. But you've got some things mixed up in there.

  4. #164
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    First off, I completly overestimated your willingness to learn. Since your post is pretty much garbage, I will just refute your fussy maths.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    No, no. Not GDP per capita. Standard of living. GDP per capita is a whole different thing. GDP per capita doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the standard of living. For example, if you have a country of 100 people, one of them is makes a billion dollars a year and the other 99 make $0 per year and are starving to death, your GDP per capita would be $10 million, but your standard of living would be amongst the worst in the world. GDP that is overwhelmed by income inequality does you no good.
    So how do you measure your standard of living? Oh... that's right it doesn't exist an objective measure of standard of living. Hence, you just admitted pulling the number out of your ass.

    No, it's $44k total compensation. The differential between $44k and $97k does include capital expenditures. So, for example, rent and electricity bills. The substantial majority of corporations actually pay no income taxes at all. So that pretty much just leaves profit.
    Your numbers are the same as median personal income, so they certainly do not include benefits.

    If corporation do not pay income tax, it means that are not taking any of the money out for personal use. I don't see the problem.


    Not sure I'm following. Can you explain more? Income from hidden taxes?
    The government gets it's revenue from hidden taxes. Is that really hard to understand?


    We will stop it. That's the bottom line. We aren't going to let them keep radically enriching themselves while giving us sob stories about how they need to lower our compensation. We're done permitting that. The rigged game is over. By all means, if things go badly for the economy and everybody loses money, that's something you just suck up and deal with. But when they're telling you that you need to work twice as hard for half as much money and meanwhile they're off to the Bahamas with billions of dollars, that's a no go.
    You're not going to stop it, because you do not understand the economy at all, and you are denying reality. People like you are extremly dangerous, because the policies that people like you implement have a tendency to backfire and cause poverty. Since you are so convinced the game is rigged, you will become paranoid and create even worse policies to take down the evil corporations.



    GDP per capita in the US in 1960 was $14,133 adjusted for inflation. The US's GDP per capita today is $47,184. So, that's a 333% increase. It was higher before the crash I guess, that's when I got the 400% figure.

    Are you kidding me?
    1. That number is in 2003 dollars. You need to adjust for that.
    2. When you calculate increase. You need to subtract by 1 or 100%.

    I would expect most kids above the age of 12 to know this. You certainly do not know how to calculate growth, and you are constantly talking about how much the rich is growing compared to the rest.


    Not sure what your argument is. 65% in average income is still really terrible. But median income is the one that matters. Average just gets distorted by outliers with absurd amounts of income, it doesn't reflect how well actual people are doing.
    If the system is rigged, and this caused the average income to reduce its increase by 100%. Then that means rich people took the 100% and hide it.

    Are you telling me that there are massive amount of income, equal to 30% of the GDP or 5 trillion dollars that is not accounted in the income, or capital gains, and is earned by a few rich people. In that case you need to document it, because if we confiscated all their wealth right now it wouldn't last very long. Where is all that hidden income?

    That graph ends at 2005... Still recovering from the dot com crash.
    Except that their income dropped in the financial crisis as well. Hardly any 400% increase as you are talking about. Not even close.



    As you can see above, it turns out that you're the ones that has the numbers a bit mixed up. No offense, you're definitely way more informed than most. But you've got some things mixed up in there.
    You don't even know how to calculate increase, and you tell me I got the numbers mixed up. You seriously need to educate yourself about these issues, before you talk about them.

    Or don't get educated, but stop talking about topics you have no understanding of.
    Last edited by Camlon; 10-21-11 at 05:51 PM.

  5. #165
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    First off, I completly overestimated your willingness to learn. Since your post is pretty much garbage, I will just refute your fussy maths.
    Hey! I'm playing nicely with you and you turned all bratty!

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    So how do you measure your standard of living? Oh... that's right it doesn't exist an objective measure of standard of living. Hence, you just admitted pulling the number out of your ass.
    How could you possibly even engage in any policy discussion about anything without tracking the standard of living? That's like trying to play scrabble without paying attention to the points...

    The most universally agreed upon measure is probably the human development index the UN keeps. It's an objective statistical index, not something pulled out of anybody's ass... Obviously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Your numbers are the same as median personal income, so they certainly do not include benefits.
    I think you're thinking of the median HOUSEHOLD income- that's $49k in the last census. I'm talking about individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    If corporation do not pay income tax, it means that are not taking any of the money out for personal use. I don't see the problem.
    Your theory was that corporate income taxes explained the massive gap between $44k and $97. Obviously it doesn't. Most of them pay no corporate income taxes at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    1. That number is in 2003 dollars. You need to adjust for that.
    That's true, but not significant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    2. When you calculate increase. You need to subtract by 1.
    Doh, you're right on that one. I shouldn't be saying "increased by 333%", I mean "is 333% of what it was in 1960". Still though, the point remains unrefuted, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    If the system is rigged, and this caused the average income to drop 100%. Then that means rich people took the 100% and hide it and neither income or capital gains.

    Are you telling me that there are massive amount of income, equal to 30% of the GDP or 5 trillion dollars that is not accounted in the income, or capital gains, and is earned by a few rich people. In that case you need to document it, because if we confiscated all their wealth right now it wouldn't last very long. Where is all that hidden income?
    Just look at the graph you posted a couple posts back. You show the average income of the top 1% going from $600k to $2m between just 1979 and 2005 in constant dollars. That's only half of the time range we're talking about. If it increased at the same rate the rest of the time span, that would give you a ballpark of a 766% increase in the income of the top 1% since 1960. Obviously that's not exact, I'm just trying to base it on your data. So you see how that is totally incompatible with your theory that the average only went up 65%, right? That is more than 1/3 of our nation's income right there- the top 1%. So even if everybody else's income dropped to zero between 1960 and today, that would still be an average increase of 255%... So obviously you're missing something, right? Post your source and we'll see if we can figure out what it is. Maybe unrealized gains? Maybe it's excluding a bunch of types of income? But obviously you're missing something.

    But the median income just went up 40%. It's because, as your graph nicely demonstrates, all the income growth is occurring at the tippy top.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Or don't get educated, but stop talking about topics you have no understanding of.
    Ok, since you're getting bratty, lets just try to dumb it down. You tell me. Why is the top 1% shooting up in wealth rapidly while the rest of us are actually losing ground? Are you contending it is impossible to fix? We should just resign ourselves to living in a society where the rich get all the money and we get table scraps no matter how hard we work? Why not fix it? Out of some kind of fealty to feudal lords or something? No thanks.

  6. #166
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,427

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    What happens is more and more of what is produced every year never even leaves the ownership/management classes hands in the first place.
    What happens is they are free, and you apparently hate it, and don't want freedom. Quite literally.

    If susie opens a lemonade stand and spends $5 on supplies, and pulls in $20 that afternoon. what bloddy ****ing business is it of yours to go demand her $15 profit, or to tell her she has to "hand more of it out", or any other such bull****?

    You wanna know why you're mad? Because susie DOES hand that money back out, she goes and buys some watercolor books and stickers, she doesn't give it to you beacuse you demand it...how sad right? And the people who were kind enough to build a business to offer those products to her, likewise, EARNS The right to that income and decides where it will go.

    But low and behold, the people that are mad? Are the people not doing what other people want in the market. Their goods and services just aren't in demand. Guess what, if you keep doing **** we don't want, no one will give you anything, and you have no one but yourself to blame.

  7. #167
    Teacher of All Things


    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,347

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Let's see your "research".
    If you want to learn more about the people behind these protests....

    Stephen Lerner - here he wants to encourage people to stop paying their mortgages so another financial crisis will be created. He also wants to completely stop Wall Street from operating. What would that do to our country and it's economy?



    Also another major character in this is Frances Fox Piven (famous anti-capitalist) - if you can get through this video, go for it. The crowd just parrots everything she says which is uber annoying and stupid:



    And if you don't know what the Cloward and Piven Strategy is: Cloward

    The point is to overwhelm the system and create a crisis so that it will collapse and the progressives in charge can then put in a new system - a "guaranteed annual income". This Wall Street stuff is the beginning of them attempting to collapse the system.

    Also involved is a group called Anonymous. Now I do agree that our government has sold us down the river and we shouldn't be bailing all these corporations out, but I don't agree that Wall Street needs to be destroyed. Plus "we are legion" is just a little disturbing:



    The co-editor of the Occupy Wall Street Journal newspaper is a communist. But, but, but....this is just about having fair capitalism, right? Uh huh...

    "We have to help bring this government down. We have to destroy this system. The solution is communism and socialism."



    We need to bring this government down? But I thought this was just about fair capitalism....

    And the co-creator of the newspaper (Aran Gupta) was a speaker at the Socialism 2011 conference in Chicago called Fomenting for Marxist Revolution.

    Fomenting for Marxist Revolution on July 4

    Cornel West (a professor) is a supporter of the movement and a member of the Democratic Socialists. The Nazi and Communists Parties support the protests too (no big surprise there if you knew who was behind it anyway). These people aren't pro-capitalism. The regular ole Joe on the street might be, but these people are leaders and they want a total transformation of the system.

    More to come as more research is done....


  8. #168
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,416
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    What happens is they are free, and you apparently hate it, and don't want freedom. Quite literally.

    If susie opens a lemonade stand and spends $5 on supplies, and pulls in $20 that afternoon. what bloddy ****ing business is it of yours to go demand her $15 profit, or to tell her she has to "hand more of it out", or any other such bull****?

    You wanna know why you're mad? Because susie DOES hand that money back out, she goes and buys some watercolor books and stickers, she doesn't give it to you beacuse you demand it...how sad right? And the people who were kind enough to build a business to offer those products to her, likewise, EARNS The right to that income and decides where it will go.

    But low and behold, the people that are mad? Are the people not doing what other people want in the market. Their goods and services just aren't in demand. Guess what, if you keep doing **** we don't want, no one will give you anything, and you have no one but yourself to blame.
    No freedom?

    Ha!

    I want NO government.

    NO protection of property or contract enforcement. No cops or jails. No military.

    If wealth wants protection they should by god pay for it themselves.

    That's all the govt the "right" wants.

    And if that's the only role its going to play then **** it.

    Give me ACTUAL liberty instead. I can take care of me and mine.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  9. #169
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    I represent the 100%.. I am the 100% of me.

    put that in your populist pipe and take a nice long toke...

  10. #170
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,446

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    15% claiming to be 1%... not surprising

Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •