The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 38    Average: 3.4/5]
35 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 11395
Rating: 3.4
Category:
Date: 11/20/11 12:35 PM

35 Responses to 99% Vs 1%: The Data Behind The Occupy Movement

  1. Profile photo of kitteh9lives
    kitteh9lives Female 70 & Over
    8044 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 12:19 pm
    Link: 99% Vs 1%: The Data Behind The Occupy Movement - Is the US really split 99% v 1%? An animation on the state of America.
  2. Profile photo of thenedman
    thenedman Male 18-29
    294 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 12:46 pm
    very interesting, but I am sure now comes the flame war in the comments...
  3. Profile photo of Shadow3arser
    Shadow3arser Female 18-29
    4 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm
    mmmm seem boring at first. but i learn something
  4. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36850 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    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!
  5. Profile photo of a1butcher
    a1butcher Male 40-49
    4809 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Loved the pacman graphs..
  6. Profile photo of MightyPeanut
    MightyPeanut Male 30-39
    411 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 1:14 pm
    Gerry...that was some tasty sarcasm ;)
  7. Profile photo of dude21862004
    dude21862004 Male 18-29
    768 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 1:21 pm
    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...
  8. Profile photo of DuckBoy87
    DuckBoy87 Male 18-29
    3284 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm
    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.
  9. Profile photo of Arcval
    Arcval Male 18-29
    304 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 1:53 pm
    Gerry its posts like that that convince me your a troll.
  10. Profile photo of thelonious
    thelonious Male 40-49
    3286 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 1:57 pm
    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%?
  11. Profile photo of KPres
    KPres Male 30-39
    309 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 2:03 pm
    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
  12. Profile photo of ctobin34
    ctobin34 Male 18-29
    66 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 2:08 pm
    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.
  13. Profile photo of KPres
    KPres Male 30-39
    309 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 2:14 pm
    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.
  14. Profile photo of Oblivia
    Oblivia Female 18-29
    812 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 2:15 pm
    Well I still do not get what the f*ck the 99% is/was about...
  15. Profile photo of methelod
    methelod Male 18-29
    11 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 2:37 pm
    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.
  16. Profile photo of PhotoKing
    PhotoKing Male 30-39
    526 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 2:42 pm
    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.
  17. Profile photo of Buiadh
    Buiadh Male 30-39
    6739 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 2:45 pm
    Guardian. <3
  18. Profile photo of snakecharmer
    snakecharmer Male 18-29
    321 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 3:20 pm
    Bla bla bla
  19. Profile photo of burbclaver
    burbclaver Male 50-59
    878 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 3:47 pm
    @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.
  20. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33126 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 5:05 pm
    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.
  21. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6267 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 5:25 pm
    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.
  22. Profile photo of thelonious
    thelonious Male 40-49
    3286 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm
    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.
  23. Profile photo of Mirage6
    Mirage6 Male 18-29
    25 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 7:10 pm
    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.
  24. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6267 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 8:24 pm
    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.
  25. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33126 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 8:44 pm
    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!
  26. Profile photo of I-IS-BORED
    I-IS-BORED Male 18-29
    2419 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 8:59 pm
    "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?
  27. Profile photo of wake_n_bake
    wake_n_bake Male 18-29
    663 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 9:14 pm
    ""effective tax rate" whatever THAT means!"
    Trolling or just stupid?
  28. Profile photo of thelonious
    thelonious Male 40-49
    3286 posts
    November 20, 2011 at 9:30 pm
    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.
  29. Profile photo of Kiete5
    Kiete5 Male 18-29
    123 posts
    November 21, 2011 at 12:49 am
    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
  30. Profile photo of s8tan
    s8tan Male 18-29
    90 posts
    November 21, 2011 at 3:54 am
    "If you were rich, you gained even more.." Jeez how the hell do you think they got rich?
  31. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33126 posts
    November 21, 2011 at 5:42 am
    @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.
  32. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    November 21, 2011 at 5:53 am
    @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.
  33. Profile photo of biogeek
    biogeek Female 30-39
    57 posts
    November 21, 2011 at 7:22 am
    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?
  34. Profile photo of imnakdjumpme
    imnakdjumpme Male 18-29
    598 posts
    November 21, 2011 at 4:59 pm
    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.
  35. Profile photo of OutWest
    OutWest Male 50-59
    546 posts
    November 21, 2011 at 7:30 pm
    I hate class envy and class warfare for political advantage.

    It turns us into Sheep.

Leave a Reply