99% Vs 1%: The Data Behind The Occupy Movement

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 6 years ago in

Is the US really split 99% v 1%? An animation on the state of America.
There are 35 comments:
Male 546
I hate class envy and class warfare for political advantage.

It turns us into Sheep.
0
Reply
Male 598
why would you tax the 50 million people that live below the poverty line. they already need social services and govt programs, and taking X% from them would do little for us and be very noticable to them. They said if you add up all the money and everything those 50 million people own, the total value is $250 billion. that would put a very small dent in our deficit.
0
Reply
Female 57
I don`t understand why a flat tax cant be accomplished. Is it because as the government is issuing themselves income increases they don`t want to pay more in taxes themselves?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@methelod

"I believe that the people who have earned their large fortunes (Most of the 1%) should be kept in the place of power because clearly they know how to work the system so they benefit."

So you want the people in charge of controlling you to look after their own interests, and not your interests?

I think you kiiiiiinda missed the point of that whole democracy thing we`ve been trying to have going for a while now.
0
Reply
Male 41,141
@wake_n_bake: He`s comparing "effective tax rate" on the one side with "actual taxes paid" (or something, he`s not that clear about it) on the other. Apples to Boston Terries, eh?

Smart I am, troll I do not.
0
Reply
Male 90
"If you were rich, you gained even more.." Jeez how the hell do you think they got rich?
0
Reply
Male 123
I think EVERYONE should be taxed. Hell, tax the wealthy people 20 times more than we are taxed... it`s NOT LIKE THEY CAN`T PAY FOR IT
0
Reply
Male 3,310
MeGrendel - I was sort of making a joke by stating it like it was some strawman argument. I haven`t met people who think the 99% figure means anything, but I don`t doubt they are out there.
0
Reply
Male 663
""effective tax rate" whatever THAT means!"
Trolling or just stupid?
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"I believe that the people who have earned their large fortunes (Most of the 1%) should be kept in the place of power because clearly they know how to work the system so they benefit."

So... we should retitle CEO`s as kings?
0
Reply
Male 41,141
Thank you @MeGrendel! (great name btw!)

I had a hippie friend, a REAL hippie! From the early 70`s eh? Tell me that they (the Winnipeg "occupiers") were "protesting for me" too. They are NOT there for ME! They are there for themselves and their selfish desires. Period!
0
Reply
Male 8,693
thelonious-"there is no reason to "dispel" this idea that people already knew, thank you"

Actually, there is. Every time I`m told on these forums `if you`re not part of the 1% then OWS if fighting for YOU` (and yes, I have been told that several times in this forum..obviously by an idiot).

`People` only know that the `99%` (or should that be `99%®`?) is a marketing ploy if that particular `people` has more awareness than a not-to-smart toaster. There are several on this forum that do not meet that criteria.
0
Reply
Male 25
The rich have a lower "effective tax rate" because a larger percentage of their income comes from dividends which have a tax cap (I believe at 15%) The richest Americans do pay a higher income tax rate (somewhere around 38%). For those of you who think dividends should be taxed higher, consider what would happen to investments and the ripple effect that would have. I`m not sure what the point of this video was. Are we not supposed to like rich people because they have more money than the rest of us? That just sounds like jealousy.
0
Reply
Male 3,310
Ok, I don`t think anyone here was ignorant enough to actually believe that the "99%" movement was actually claiming to have support from 99% of America. No one has ever claimed that. Everyone understood that it was a marketing tactic to try to give the movement some added credibility it couldn`t stir up on its own. So there is no reason to "dispel" this idea that people already knew, thank you.
0
Reply
Male 8,693
It`s not the 99% vs. the 1%. The 1% is not out to get you, and the vast majority of the 99% is not out to get the 1%.

The OWS do not represent the 99%.

The OWS are not fighting for the 99%.

`The 99%` is just a catch phrase that the OWS `think` is `cool`, `hip` and `accomplishing something`.

They are wrong on all three counts.
0
Reply
Male 41,141
2:30 - so it`s simple economics? Something that no politician could ever do anything about? That`s the message here?
3:00 - gee, it was 45 million with no insurance when Obama took office, look how well his Obamacare has done! Reducing it to 50 million uninsured!
4:22 - "effective tax rate" whatever THAT means! (hint: it means the makes of the video are fudging their numbers to make it look good, m-kay?)

key-rice-tea! what an utter waste of time.
0
Reply
Male 878
@methelod: About "putting their eggs in one faulty basket". I have stayed in the 18000 square foot West Coast home of one of Wall Street`s top guys. He spent every penny he could on the house to make it an incredibly opulent mansion. The point is, it was still chump change to him. He doesn`t "put all his eggs in one basket" because the best home you can imagine still represents a tiny proportion of his income. When you or I pay for somewhere to live, it represents a lot bigger proportion of our income. I`d also discuss other of your points, but I can`t be bothered.
0
Reply
Male 321
Bla bla bla
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Guardian. <3
0
Reply
Male 526
i don`t think i register on that at all. as i don`t remember seeing the unemployed on that map, just the low income earners and those that don`t have food or health.
0
Reply
Male 11
I think this video was in support of the supposed 99% but all it has shown me is that the 1% were smarter then the 99% for not putting all of their eggs into one faulty basket. Why should we penalize someone for being intelligent? I believe that the people who have earned their large fortunes (Most of the 1%) should be kept in the place of power because clearly they know how to work the system so they benefit. A lot of the numbers seemed to be skewed so that it seems as if the 1% are the villains here.
0
Reply
Female 812
Well I still do not get what the f*ck the 99% is/was about...
0
Reply
Male 309
5. Only 9% of billionaires` wealth is inherited. The rest is created.

6. Real poverty hasn`t increased. Instead, the official poverty rate is what has increased, since it`s a function of median income (which doesn`t make any sense).

7. The quantity of debt is misleading. Interest rates are at all-time lows, so people can borrow more while losing much less in interest. If you borrow to buy a $200,000 house at 0% interest, you lose nothing. If you buy a $100,000 house at 5% interest, you lose ~$100,000. Ergo, the person with the $200,000 loan is better off.

8. The US Gini coefficient hasn`t increased since 1994.

9. Most importantly, the fact that somebody else gets rich in no way harms you. US median income is at an all-time high.
0
Reply
Male 66
The wealthiest 1 percent earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes... Funny that this stat wasn`t in video.
0
Reply
Male 309
Mostly propaganda. I could go through the list and debunk most of it if had the time or inclination, but just a couple of quick ones...

1. Luxury items have increased their profits because inflation has been higher in those products than has been the case in more staple goods. A corollary of this is that a rich person`s dollar has lost its purchasing power more rapidly than it used to, at a more rapid pace than a poor persons.

2. The share of wealth for the top 1% has not increased much over time. It was 31% in 1960, and is 33% today.

3. The above gives rise to the lie that income inequality rose since 1980. Most of that is an accounting trick. When Reagan lowered the top marginal rate, rich people moved their money from corporations into their personal accounts, because the tax rate was lower. Tada! Their incomes increased (although they didn`t really).

4. 80% of American millionaires are self-made.

5. Only 9% of billionaires` m
0
Reply
Male 3,310
I don`t understand. If this video that showed me that there are people who own a lot of stuff didn`t make me mad, does that mean I`m one of the 1%?
0
Reply
Male 303
Gerry its posts like that that convince me your a troll.
0
Reply
Male 3,668
Isn`t it a tad ironic that to protest you have to have some sort of money to be able to not work for the duration of the protest, have money to be able to travel to the protest, and have some money for food and encampment equipment?

I bet you that I could grab any random protester and s/he is richer than I.
0
Reply
Male 768
Bill Gates does a lot of charity stuff, and I believe he`s pledged a crap ton of his money to charities after he dies...
0
Reply
Male 411
Gerry...that was some tasty sarcasm ;)
0
Reply
Male 4,807

Loved the pacman graphs..
0
Reply
Male 40,250

Yeah, here`s proof the OWS are just whiners. Crying little spoiled
brats. Punk bitches, what have they got to cry about? Just because there`s
no hope for their futures is irrelevant. They should just take their degrees,
get a minimum wage job and be happy with it!
0
Reply
Female 4
mmmm seem boring at first. but i learn something
0
Reply
Male 319
very interesting, but I am sure now comes the flame war in the comments...
0
Reply
Female 8,043
Link: 99% Vs 1%: The Data Behind The Occupy Movement [Rate Link] - Is the US really split 99% v 1%? An animation on the state of America.
0
Reply