Question for the 99%'ers who argue for the 1%'s

[Smitty]

I don't hang out with anyone personally that has your challenged (by your own admission) income level, yet stays on his knees and defends the his masters.

When you were in high school did you also defend the "popular kids" yet have them laugh at you behind your back?

G, I don't understand where all this talk of "masters" is coming from.

I work for someone. Does that make me a slave?
Even though I have zero debt and enough money to quit today and not work for years? I continue working because the money is great. Does that make me a slave loyal to my master?
I used to own a restaurant, but I still relied on my customers to stay in business. Am I slave to my customers? Or a master because I own my own business?

Just because someone sids with the wealthy does not make them a slave.

But bro, it does perplex me how you have so much wealth, yet so much enmity for the wealthy.

 

[Bad Hussar]

I haven't read the whole thread yet so am sorry if this has been discussed already.

IMHO I don't think people you characterize as being for the 1% are really for them at all. Certainly not for the thieves at Goldman Sachs and the like. They are more likely middle class people looking after their own long term interests. For example someone who opposes increasing taxes on "the rich", whoever they are, just doen't believe/trust the proponents that only the rich will have their tax increased. As you probably know when income tax itself was introduced it was touted as a tax on the rich. But now even someone earning minimum wage has to pay personal income tax - which any sane person should find disgraceful.

How does the saying go? First they came for the homeless, then they came for the blacks, then they came for the Jews.... (I'm paraphrasing, obviously, I can't remember the actual quote. But the idea is the same. The forces that "come for" the rich will never be satisfied with stopping there. They will continue down the line untill a revolution stops them.)

 

[Roosh]

Political discussions are futile, here or anywhere else.

In the Occupy Thread I like showing videos and graphics that are interesting to me, that I found while surfing. I know there are people who have a similar viewpoint that want to see those things. But trying to convince anyone they're right or wrong will just breed anger.

 

[ea303]

Political discussions are futile, here or anywhere else.

In the Occupy Thread I like showing videos and graphics that are interesting to me, that I found while surfing. I know there are people who have a similar viewpoint that want to see those things. But trying to convince anyone they're right or wrong will just breed anger.

Where is that post of the day image. Also I enjoy your postings.

 

[The_CEO]

For the top 1% of the population, average inflation-adjusted household income grew by 275%. The rest of wealthiest fifth of the population, not including the top 1%, saw household income grow by 65% during that time, faster than the rest of the population, but "not nearly as fast as for the top 1%."

So what? The 1% got richer than the rest of the wealthiest fifth of the population. I don't understand what the big deal is. This is America, where anyone in any class is still free to open a business and try to find success.
The issue I have is when people - rich and poor - are living off the taxpayers dime.
Other than that, who gives a fuck if one group is getting richer faster than another.

Well, it's a big deal when that minority is playing by house rules, and at the expense of everyone else.
And it's not good for anyone's prosperity in the long run to have that kind of income disparity. There's no one left to buy the sh-t you want to sell.

 

[Gmac]

For the top 1% of the population, average inflation-adjusted household income grew by 275%. The rest of wealthiest fifth of the population, not including the top 1%, saw household income grow by 65% during that time, faster than the rest of the population, but "not nearly as fast as for the top 1%."

So what? The 1% got richer than the rest of the wealthiest fifth of the population. I don't understand what the big deal is. This is America, where anyone in any class is still free to open a business and try to find success.
The issue I have is when people - rich and poor - are living off the taxpayers dime.
Other than that, who gives a fuck if one group is getting richer faster than another.

Well, it's a big deal when that minority is playing by house rules, and at the expense of everyone else.
And it's not good for anyone's prosperity in the long run to have that kind of income disparity. There's no one left to buy the sh-t you want to sell.

Nobody plays by the rules. That's life, unfair. The sooner people realize this the better off they'll be. I'm not saying I have all the answer, but you have to work with the hand you're dealt.

 

[Vicious]

The whole anger over the 1% is laughable because it really shows people lack of fundamental math and logical reasoning.
In the US for example the 1% would be anyone earning $250.000 and above. A lot of money, but hardly old-boys-club illuminati CEOs like the catchphrase would want you to believe.

 

[MikeCF]

Political discussions are futile, here or anywhere else.

In the Occupy Thread I like showing videos and graphics that are interesting to me, that I found while surfing. I know there are people who have a similar viewpoint that want to see those things. But trying to convince anyone they're right or wrong will just breed anger.

Of the participants, you're right. It's the silent guys whose minds are being changed.

If we had had this discussion three years ago, most would be pro 1%. Sentiment is changing, thanks to debate.

 

[MikeCF]

Barry Ritholtz must be poor, right?

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/who-is-getting-richer-who-is-not/

 

[MikeCF]

The whole anger over the 1% is laughable because it really shows people lack of fundamental math and logical reasoning.
In the US for example the 1% would be anyone earning $250.000 and above. A lot of money, but hardly old-boys-club illuminati CEOs like the catchphrase would want you to believe.

See, buddy, if you're going to be smug, at least get your facts right.

The top 1% is $380,354.

That's also AGI.

I don't expect you to understand the difference between income and AGI.

Still, the facts speak for themselves. You and other boot lickers don't even have your basic facts right.

You don't know what the income number is.

You don't know how AGI is calculated.

You don't know how much money is washed out before AGI is calculated.

For the guys with an open mind.

I could have over one million in income, while having an AGI of $380,000.

While your plebians pay for your car, my corporation leases one, that it allows me to use for business purposes. That's a tax write-off.

If I buy my own car, well, I can write off mileage - 52 cents per mile. My morning commute thus makes me a small profit.

Gold-plated health care plan? That's an write-off, too.

Also, I can put up to $50,000 in a retirement fund. Another tax write-off.

Etc.

So, sure, 380K is not a ton of money. Once you see how you arrive at that number, you realize what real money is involved.

 

[Chad Daring]

Chad, working hard is only part of the equation. It also takes brains, luck, and good associates to advance far in this country. I think you're a smart dude and you'll find your way and be successful.
This I dont doubt, I'm tenacious too and more and more (thanks to all you guys :grouphug: ) I'm finding myself taking risks, which are usually key to progress in life.
But the reason you have dick to show for your hard work right now is because of the choices you made.

This I call bullshit on. I'm 23, I've only legally been making choices for myself for 5 years, and lets be honest the first few years of "adulthood" you still dont make many choices.

This is one of my biggest sticking points in this whole view AGAINST the "99%". Most are young people (under the age of 30) who were pushed into the grinders by the generation that came before.

Yes, if I had gone to college for a more lucrative degree, or not gone to college at all I would probably be better off right now, but I didn't wakeup one morning as a teenager and go "gee I bet going to culinary school will be awesome!" I was harassed talked into doing so by EVERY ADULT EVER that I knew at the time. All of them told me how good of an idea culinary school was. I was a CHILD I wasn't responsible enough to buy beer, yet I'm supposed to be responsible for making a decisions that impacts THE REST OF MY LIFE?

What's the basis for your statement of the 1% not sharing any of what they have? Americans, rich and poor, are the most giving in the world.

I base it on the face that we have celebrities and athletes who make MILLIONS and complain about not making enough money. I base it on my personal experience doing pest control in a very wealthy area (multi-million dollar homes) of Maryland where I was yelled at by an old codger in silk pajamas, walking out of a few million dollar house, with a Beamer in the driveway. He yelled at me FOR DOING MY JOB I wasn't panhandling and begging for money, I was trying to work for a living.

I base it off the fact that my dad is one of the most giving people I know, he makes less then 100k a year, and he's one of the many small business owners being fucked by the system right now. And he's not giving toward me, but towards all people. He's put many roofs on houses FOR FREE because the owners were unable to pay (usually old women who's husband had died)

I tell everyone how he put a roof on a house for a pan of brownies.

He's bought cars and tools for guys so they could work for him. He didn't make them pay it back or sign a contract, he took it on faith to give his hard earned money up, so that another man could have a job.

 

[Vicious]

The whole anger over the 1% is laughable because it really shows people lack of fundamental math and logical reasoning.
In the US for example the 1% would be anyone earning $250.000 and above. A lot of money, but hardly old-boys-club illuminati CEOs like the catchphrase would want you to believe.

See, buddy, if you're going to be smug, at least get your facts right.

The top 1% is $380,354.

That's also AGI.

I don't expect you to understand the difference between income and AGI.

Still, the facts speak for themselves. You and other boot lickers don't even have your basic facts right.

You don't know what the income number is.

You don't know how AGI is calculated.

You don't know how much money is washed out before AGI is calculated.

You're hilarious, I haven't even taken a stance in this yet you're immediately ultra defensive and full of assumptions. My only point was to show how "1%" is just a catchphrase. Make it the 1 percentile and we would be talking, until then...

 

[Yams]

If there is anything that can make a grown ass man sound like a whiny woman its Politics. No logic just all emotion.

If you feel that your life is the result of other people dicking you in the ass then you are indeed giving up a lot of your power to those people. Capitalism, socialism , communism, hunters & gatherers...none of these systems will give you the Utopia that you hopelessly believe in because life will inherently suck sometimes.

 

[PDX]

If you're not in the top 90% of incomes, you can expect to take home less money every year.

Go ahead, argue why you're in favor of that.

Please.

 

[babelfish669]

Who is better, the 99% or 1%? Coke or Pepsi? Mac or Windows? Come on guys, you aren't dummies, is the real problem that invisible?

I wish everyone would stop arguing about if rich or poor people are more evil, and instead unite against the one thing they do agree on: no financial bailouts with government money. All liberals & socialists agree on this, all conservatives & neo-fascists agree on it. Why the fuck did everyone they elect ignore them? Its real easy to keep the rich in check when there companies can go from billions to zero overnight. Since winning a democratic election requires you to divide your constituency, this isn't happening, and the problem won't be solved.

 

[Saladin]

You guys are taking this way too personally. Why can't people just talk about politics without taking it personally?

 

[worldwidetraveler]

You guys are taking this way too personally. Why can't people just talk about politics without taking it personally?

There are only a minority of people that feel the need to attack others. It just makes them look weak when they need to say things like "bow down to your masters" or call people "boot lickers".

Someone can be against wealth redistribution and it doesn't matter if they are in the 1%. I am pro choice but haven't been pregnant. According to some, in this thread, I shouldn't be able to take a stance on things like that unless I am in that situation. I guess I need to get pregnant so I can be pro choice. It isn't debating any longer but putting others down for different belief systems.

 

[The_CEO]

You guys are taking this way too personally. Why can't people just talk about politics without taking it personally?

Someone can be against wealth redistribution and it doesn't matter if they are in the 1%.

Well you need to be against it more then.

What a lot of people don't seem to grasp in spite of the data being obvious, is that the wealth has already been re-distributed upwards and has been for the last 20 years or so. E.g. Clinton's 2.4 trillion $ surplus, given to the 1% as a tax giveaway.

 

[PDX]

Well you need to be against it more then.

What a lot of people don't seem to grasp in spite of the data being obvious, is that the wealth has already been re-distributed upwards and has been for the last 20 years or so. E.g. Clinton's 2.4 trillion $ surplus, given to the 1% as a tax giveaway.

Exactly. Wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is seen as healthy capitalism. Wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor is seen as socialism.

And the public is so brainwashed they'll argue in favor of the former, and vilify the latter.

 

[Smitty]

Well you need to be against it more then.

What a lot of people don't seem to grasp in spite of the data being obvious, is that the wealth has already been re-distributed upwards and has been for the last 20 years or so. E.g. Clinton's 2.4 trillion $ surplus, given to the 1% as a tax giveaway.

Exactly. Wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is seen as healthy capitalism. Wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor is seen as socialism.

And the public is so brainwashed they'll argue in favor of the former, and vilify the latter.

How is it redistribution from the poor to the wealthy?
If tax rates on the wealthy are lowered, then you are taking less of what they earn. That less revenue means you must stop spending somewhere else to make up the difference. I assume you're saying the poor received fewer entitlements due to the decrease in tax income (i.e. lower tax rates) coming from the wealthy.
So when tax rates are lowered, the wealthy keep more of what they earn and the poor receive less of what they have not earned.

I fail to see how is it transferring wealth from the poor to the rich?
Why is it that the rich have to pay more than they already do? Why not just keep tax rates where they are but cut gov't spending? Defense spending, entitlements, operating budgets for the many, many lazy government workers who are not held accountable for one deliverable and impossible to fire for poor performance (or anything else, short of criminal activity). It's all a drain on the economy. Why should taxpayers keep funding this unproductive activity?