I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

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

Hits: 11387 | Rating: (2.7) | Category: Community & Lifestyle | Added by: kitteh9lives
Page: 1 2 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
OutWest
Male, 50-59, Western US
 548 Posts
Monday, November 21, 2011 7:30:55 PM
I hate class envy and class warfare for political advantage.

It turns us into Sheep.

imnakdjumpme
Male, 18-29, Western US
 595 Posts
Monday, November 21, 2011 4:59:00 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.

biogeek
Female, 30-39, Eastern US
 57 Posts
Monday, November 21, 2011 7:22:34 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?

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Monday, November 21, 2011 5:53:06 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.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25716 Posts
Monday, November 21, 2011 5:42:58 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.

s8tan
Male, 18-29, Europe
 90 Posts
Monday, November 21, 2011 3:54:04 AM
"If you were rich, you gained even more.." Jeez how the hell do you think they got rich?

Kiete5
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 123 Posts
Monday, November 21, 2011 12:49:14 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

thelonious
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 3246 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 9:30:13 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.

wake_n_bake
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 657 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 9:14:57 PM
""effective tax rate" whatever THAT means!"
Trolling or just stupid?

I-IS-BORED
Male, 18-29, Canada
 2432 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 8:59:13 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?

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25716 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 8:44:52 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!

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4639 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 8:24:42 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.

Mirage6
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 25 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 7:10:22 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.

thelonious
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 3246 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 6:33:10 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.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4639 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 5:25:07 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.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25716 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 5:05:49 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.

burbclaver
Male, 50-59, Western US
 859 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 3:47:07 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.

snakecharmer
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 321 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 3:20:58 PM
Bla bla bla

Buiadh
Male, 30-39, Europe
 6653 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 2:45:31 PM
Guardian. <3

PhotoKing
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 523 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 2:42:57 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.

methelod
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 11 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 2:37:19 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.

Oblivia
Female, 18-29, Europe
 817 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 2:15:42 PM
Well I still do not get what the f*ck the 99% is/was about...

KPres
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 309 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 2:14:12 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.

ctobin34
Male, 18-29, Western US
 66 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 2:08:58 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.

KPres
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 309 Posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011 2:03:23 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

Page: 1 2 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.