My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
the Y axis measures income for each variable (median and top 1%) it is adjusted for inflation.
The 1945 median and top 1% income were both about $2400; in 2007 dollars, that translates to about $24,000. Looking at the graph, the median income in 2001 (in 2007 dollars) is $24,000 x 2.5 ~ $60,000. The top 1% income in 2001 (in 2007 dollars) is $24,000 x 3.2 ~ $76,800.
Do we really need to see beyond 2007 since taxes are lower then they have been in 50 years?
Your point about capitol gains might hold water--I am not an economist nor did I create the chart but most of the 99% do not even have a reason to know what that means.
The chart represents a feeling in this country that the American Dream has been supplanted by the Corporate American Dream that has caused an expanding in the disparity of who controls wealth and therefore power in this country.
1) There's no units on the x and y axis. Did a third grader make this chart?
2) I'm assuming it's growth. Even so, you can't compare medians (median income) with averages (the top 1%, which I think is an average). This would be an example of skewing data. Change it, I'd like to see the result.
3) Cut out the capital gains, and let's see how that effects the chart. Capital gains affect business and create jobs, which spill back to the median income (via job creation). They are definitely pushing the top 1% up. Yet, also helping the median (but less so). They are good, but skew the results.
4) Why's the data end before President Obama was elected? What's happened since?
5) Why is growth exactly equal in 1945? Is this data indexed? If so, that fudges the whole thing.
6) Even if there were clear cut answers to all of the above, I still don't get it. Everyone's incomes have been growing. So, if Person A's grows faster, they should be penalized? Even if Person A is paying much more as a percentage of his income in taxes already? Sorry... I don't buy it.
7) This has nothing little to nothing to do with the financial crisis / the recession,... or why people are jobless.
If I remember correctly they did lose their jobs...and their homes.
Many did. 100% correct. That's why the bailout was a stupid idea. I never disagreed with that assessment. I disagree with how these people are tyring to use that to justify giving them more money. On top of the 2 things not being analagous in intent, the first one was wrong, so why ask to exacerbate it?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Again... i'm not an economist... but, i think i know the answers to some of your questions. 1) There's no units on the x and y axis. Did a third grader make this chart?
X is a timeline.
Y is an amount (in millions, billions? I don't know, but there are numbers on the Y axis).
2) I'm assuming it's growth. Even so, you can't compare medians (median income) with averages (the top 1%, which I think is an average). This would be an example of skewing data. Change it, I'd like to see the result.
Isn't a median... an average? Take the high and the low and come up with a median. not as accurate as adding up all of the figures and dividing by the numers holding the figure. But, similar.
3) Cut out the capital gains, and let's see how that effects the chart. Capital gains affect business and create jobs, which spill back to the median income (via job creation). They are definitely pushing the top 1% up. Yet, also helping the median (but less so). They are good, but skew the results.
Are the Capital gains included to ommited?
4) Why's the data end before President Obama was elected? What's happened since?
Maybe because the chart is from 2007. I don't remember Obama being President in 2007.
5) Why is growth exactly equal in 1945? Is this data indexed? If so, that fudges the whole thing.
You'll have to analyze the raw data for that.
6) Even if there were clear cut answers to all of the above, I still don't get it. Everyone's incomes have been growing. So, if Person A's grows faster, they should be penalized? Even if Person A is paying much more as a percentage of his income in taxes already? Sorry... I don't buy it.
7) This has nothing little to nothing to do with the financial crisis / the recession,... or why people are jobless.
I thought it was supposed to point out how 1% of the population holds 20% on the wealth
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
7) This has nothing little to nothing to do with the financial crisis / the recession,... or why people are jobless.[/i]
I thought it was supposed to point out how 1% of the population holds 20% on the wealth
and why people would defend this top 1% and the bankers who would have you thrown out of your house without a second thought is beyond me....
Perhaps the most ardent defenders of the financial and corporate elite are also members of the club. You don't try to change things when you're playing for the winning team.
and why people would defend this top 1% and the bankers who would have you thrown out of your house without a second thought is beyond me....
Perhaps the most ardent defenders of the financial and corporate elite are also members of the club. You don't try to change things when you're playing for the winning team.
you might be right. but i don't think any of the financial or corporate elite are posting in this thread, so those defending the elite confuse me lol..
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
So, you protest just to protest. If the tv says black, I say white. And, I'll disrupt your lives to tell you. If you get on tv, you're caving to the media. If you don't put me on tv, you're ignoring my cause. What happens when you end up on tv?
Yes, there are people in the tea party movement that are looney. But, at least they are not blocking people from getting to THEIR jobs and looking for hand outs. Plus, they are not running up NYPD overtime that will cause a city already stressed budget wise. And if it continues this weekend (will be interesting to see what the Jewish segment of the protest does), they get double time. Bravo. Why not write your Congressman and save the taxpayers money that they don't have. I don't see the tea party doing that to this extent. Talk about selfish.
I do not fully support the tea party. They have some salient points that I've been able to hear because they've done it mostly in a civil fashion. The Wall Street Nuts (As they should be called) are all style and no substance, as the union hijacking has highlighted.
i don't follow your logic here. you say i protest just to protest? no, i protest when i see wrongs. no matter what side of the political spectrum commits them. and getting onto tv while protesting is not caving to the media. it is USING that media to spread your message and hopefully encourage more like-minded people to come join the cause.
you say the tea party are not looking for handouts? they are actually looking for handouts to their health insurance companies. they are looking for handouts in that they want tax cuts below what they are now, which is the lowest thety have ever been. they are anti-tax. the ironic thing is that taxes are necessary to pay for things like police overtime, which is something that the tea party would in theory oppose and you and i know that writing to our congressman means dick. it means absolutely nothing. it accomplishes nothing. calling their office means nothing. have you ever written a letter or called a congressman? you receive some bullshit form letter thanking you for your time and for writing and expressing your opinion, and something along the lines of your representative is paying attention and is taking your opinion into consideration. calling is worse because you only ever get to speak to some stupid staffer who blows you off and i am sure never relays the message that you leave..and these protestors are NOT selfish. they are tired of taking it up the ass and losing their jobs and homes, while people like herman cain said "if you don't have a job and are not rich it is YOUR fault." they are doing this to better their life and the lives of their children.
so you don't support the tea party, and you scoff at this movement?? what is it that you stand for then? the status quo? if you stand for the status quo then either you are part of that top 1% or you are very vanilla, because you can not not support one or the other. you are going to have to take a side if you want to be active.
and this quote from you is interesting "The Wall Street Nuts (As they should be called) are all style and no substance, as the union hijacking has highlighted." i think you say that because that is the message that the mainstream media is trying to convey to you because the MAINSTREAM MEDIA THAT YOU ARE LISTENING TO IS ALL OWNED BY CORPORATIONS!!!. THE SAME COPRORATIONS THAT THE PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING, SO OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO SPERAD THE WORD TO THE MASSES THAT THE PROTESTORS ARE DISORGANIZED AND HAVE NO REAL GOALS OR PLAN OR MISSION AS A WAY TO DELEGITIMIZE AND UNDERMINE AND DISCREDIT THEIR CAUSE. does it all make sense now?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
.and I refuse to take marching orders from the koch brothers or roger ailes and fox news...
Will you take them from the unions?
What we have here is exactly like the tea party. A group of fed up people brought together by a lot of different issues. Only this time it the more liberal ideology. And now we are seeing the same thing that happened to the tea party start to happen to this group. They are starting to be "joined" (ie take over) by the Unions, and the democratic party won't be far behind. Then, all we'll end up with it's extreme people yelling at each other...hey, wait, that's where we already are.
no i would not take orders from unions. i believe in unions and i see their value and i support them. i would allow them to protest with me for a few reasons. they are experienced at protesting and they are organized. very organized.
you are saying the democratic party is going to take over? how so when most of the people are pissed off at obama and the dems for doing nothing when they had a supermajority? i think this movement is smart enough to know when some sacred cow senator shows up to show support, that that senator likely had something to do with the problem and is not a part of the solution.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
[/i]
Isn't a median... an average? Take the high and the low and come up with a median. not as accurate as adding up all of the figures and dividing by the numers holding the figure.
Median is not average. Oftentimes it is very close. But in this case for the upper echelon it could be skewed. Median is the middle number of a series. So, if you have
1 billion, 500,000, 500,000, 500,000
500,000 is the median, something close to 250 million is the average. So you are right to be suspicious of this graph. Not that 250 million isn't a lot, but 1 billion is a lot more than 500,000. This is where Obama and his buddies go wrong.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
1) There's no units on the x and y axis. Did a third grader make this chart?
X is a timeline.
Y is an amount (in millions, billions? I don't know, but there are numbers on the Y axis).
Correct. I made a slight typo. I meant soley the y axis. What I really meant is that that has no label, so we have no clue whether the chart is representing growth or levels. Basically, this shows no professionalism. But, I believe it's growth.
2) I'm assuming it's growth. Even so, you can't compare medians (median income) with averages (the top 1%, which I think is an average). This would be an example of skewing data. Change it, I'd like to see the result.
Isn't a median... an average? Take the high and the low and come up with a median. not as accurate as adding up all of the figures and dividing by the numers holding the figure. But, similar.
No, median is not an average and one should never compare medians to averages. I'll show a simple example.... Three guys: A, B, C. A makes $10 a year. B makes $100. And C makes $1000. The median is the middle number, so it's $100. The average or mean is 370. Clearly the mean or average is inflated relative to the mean.
3) Cut out the capital gains, and let's see how that effects the chart. Capital gains affect business and create jobs, which spill back to the median income (via job creation). They are definitely pushing the top 1% up. Yet, also helping the median (but less so). They are good, but skew the results.
Are the Capital gains included to ommited?
I don't know for sure if capital gains are included or omitted. I would put money on them being included.
4) Why's the data end before President Obama was elected? What's happened since?
Maybe because the chart is from 2007. I don't remember Obama being President in 2007.
If the chart is from 2007, why is it being used now without updated numbers? My point is, for all we know this "may" no longer be the case. I mean this data is pre-recession data. Why are we even discussing about it? I'd like to see the chart updated with the stuff I mentioned above accounted for.
6) Even if there were clear cut answers to all of the above, I still don't get it. Everyone's incomes have been growing. So, if Person A's grows faster, they should be penalized? Even if Person A is paying much more as a percentage of his income in taxes already? Sorry... I don't buy it.
7) This has nothing little to nothing to do with the financial crisis / the recession,... or why people are jobless.
I thought it was supposed to point out how 1% of the population holds 20% on the wealth
This was posted in this occupy wall street thread as reason for the protests. Yet, the data is 2007 (before the recession) and the chart/data have tons of other issues... people are also saying the protests are due to bailouts too. These don't go with one another.
Regardless, my point is this chart has serious issues. Not saying it doesn't have data behind it that can't show something close to what it's being used for... but, these issues should be addressed. This chart, to me, shows absolutely nothing at all until those issues above are addressed. It seriously looks like a kid put this together
and why people would defend this top 1% and the bankers who would have you thrown out of your house without a second thought is beyond me....
Perhaps the most ardent defenders of the financial and corporate elite are also members of the club. You don't try to change things when you're playing for the winning team.
you might be right. but i don't think any of the financial or corporate elite are posting in this thread, so those defending the elite confuse me lol..
I don't buy for one second that the top 1% of earners all fall under the umbrella of "corporate elite". The idea that being in the top income bracket somehow makes you smarter, harder working, and generally better than everyone else is a myth that many Americans hold as fact. The American dream has a lot of disciples.
and why people would defend this top 1% and the bankers who would have you thrown out of your house without a second thought is beyond me....
Perhaps the most ardent defenders of the financial and corporate elite are also members of the club. You don't try to change things when you're playing for the winning team.
you might be right. but i don't think any of the financial or corporate elite are posting in this thread, so those defending the elite confuse me lol..
I'll speak for myself.
I believe it's first unfair to have certain people pay more as a percentage of their income to the government. That's my opinion. I'm not a spoiled little kid. I work hard and understand others do too. They are entitled to what they earn just as much as me and just as much as you. I don't like free riding off of others. When I go out to dinner with someone who makes more than me, I pay for what I get. I don't say they should pay more because they make more. In fact, I think people who think or do that are sad.
So, that's my belief on what's fair...
But, I have more...
I know that taxing the top 1% more will hurt economic growth. The reality is the top 1% already pay 40% of income taxes. 40%.
If taxes were to go up on you, would you spend more? If you were a private owner of a business (that could hire) would you hire more if your taxes went up? Come on, use logic.... the reality is, this may be a short term gain to government revenues, but I know it would be two years down the line a disaster. Why? Because less would be spend (business and consumer). Consumer spending makes up about 70% of our economy. Decrease that, you have a recession. Decrease economic activity, you have less tax revenues. So, my thinking is, increasing taxes on the top 1% would not only be unfair, it would be detrimental to economic growth and not even help government revenues (besides a short term increase, which would immediately be followed by a large decrease with a year). Overall, it makes no sense.
The problem is not the top 1% as much as the Democratic Party tells you that. It's the government.
My saying for the 2012 election is "it's the government, stupid".
I believe it's first unfair to have certain people pay more as a percentage of their income to the government. That's my opinion. I'm not a spoiled little kid. I work hard and understand others do too. They are entitled to what they earn just as much as me and just as much as you. I don't like free riding off of others. When I go out to dinner with someone who makes more than me, I pay for what I get. I don't say they should pay more because they make more. In fact, I think people who think or do that are sad.
So, that's my belief on what's fair...
I'm just going to speak on this as it's quite late.
Do the top 1% of income earners really pay more as a percentage of their earnings when they have a number of exemptions and loopholes available to them that aren't available to lower income earners? Lets not forget that you're also taxed on your expenditures which means that a middle class earner will also lose a greater percentage of their income in the form of sales tax. I'm sorry, but when the system is designed to reward the top 1% I can't agree with you. They didn't earn it; they lobbied for it. Lax regulations on financial institutions and a tax system that encourages fraudulent market practices in order to generate capital gains doesn't seem like earning something. Running a company into the ground and then taking a multi-million dollar severance package because you have the right connections doesn't seem like you've earned it either and senior AIG employees collecting millions in bonuses after the company is bailed out by the government (paid for by struggling middle-class families) always sounded like a free ride to me. These individuals have mastered the art of taking; they stopped earning it years ago.
So, the OWS is anti-corporate power. The Tea Part is anti-government power?
Ya know . . . wait, never mind. No, nah, you don't wanna hea . . . okay okay. It almost, it almost seems like, ya know, if these two philosophies were used in tandem that . . . I dunno, maybe, some middle ground could, ya know, maybe be found there and, if we united these philosophies with an emphasis on moderation, maybe, we could look to improve our situation?
I mean, that's probably just crazy talk. Any conservative will tell you that the right wing has it down pat, and is the moral party. But, then again, liberals seem to think the left is the way to go, and is the party that truly represents the middle class. Gosh, well, they both can't be right.
Ah, I guess the idea that solutions can be found with a more centrist point of view is asinine. What do I know? I'm just a 26-Y/O, blue collar kid from New Jersey. Just disregard my silly idea that working together to compromise two fundamentally similar, yet diametrically different ideas could somehow improve our country and appease a large majority of its honest working citizens.
I knew it all along, see?
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,432
So, the OWS is anti-corporate power. The Tea Part is anti-government power?
Ya know . . . wait, never mind. No, nah, you don't wanna hea . . . okay okay. It almost, it almost seems like, ya know, if these two philosophies were used in tandem that . . . I dunno, maybe, some middle ground could, ya know, maybe be found there and, if we united these philosophies with an emphasis on moderation, maybe, we could look to improve our situation?
I mean, that's probably just crazy talk. Any conservative will tell you that the right wing has it down pat, and is the moral party. But, then again, liberals seem to think the left is the way to go, and is the party that truly represents the middle class. Gosh, well, they both can't be right.
Ah, I guess the idea that solutions can be found with a more centrist point of view is asinine. What do I know? I'm just a 26-Y/O, blue collar kid from New Jersey. Just disregard my silly idea that working together to compromise two fundamentally similar, yet diametrically different ideas could somehow improve our country and appease a large majority of its honest working citizens.
No need to hesitate here, johnny america. Your ideas don't sound crazy at all. The two party system doesn't seem to be working well these days. I've heard people say that being "moderate" or "centrist" doesn't work either because that means being wishy-washy and do-nothing. But maybe it depends on how you look at centrist. If you look at it as taking what works regardless of where it comes from, centrist could be radical in the sense that taking action and doing something is radical compared to going nowhere. Does that make sense? (or do I need another cup of coffe this morning? )
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
i can understand greed. it is one of the oldest human vices.
what i don't understand are the greed cheerleaders.
is it stockholm syndrome or something??
My wife and I were just talking about that last night- about how we are all essentially greedy because it's in our make up to self-preserve and at the same time we have the capacity to be compassionate and if we use our greed to keep us going enough to keep our compassion going it can all work. Does that make sense?
What is the "Stockholm syndrome?" I'm not familiar with that term?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
i can understand greed. it is one of the oldest human vices.
what i don't understand are the greed cheerleaders.
is it stockholm syndrome or something??
One could argue that either side is being "greedy". I know you understand the one argument for greed and the right, but there's one for greed and the left too. Think about it this way. The bottom 50% pays 3% income taxes, the top 1% pays 40% of income taxes. We have a deeply progressive tax system. Meaning, the rich are taxed more (as a percentage of their income) then the middle class. The poor are even taxed less as a percent, and in most cases have a net gain via welfare programs. So, when will it be enough? When will the government (and no offense, but you) think it's enough? When will you say ok, we're starting to tax the rich too much? One could argue that you (not trying to pick on you, but you know what I mean) are being greedy. You're taking money away from one and redistributing and still saying it's not enough. You are being greedy. That's not your money, yet you want it and you want more of it.
As for your other point, I seriously recommend you take a economics class or read why some believe self-interested behavior is good. You don't have to agree with them, but to not know "why" they believe self-interested behavior is good for the whole is not good. I'd say there is a distinction between greed and self-interested behavior (maybe that's what you meant). In those terms, I would agree that greed is bad, but self-interested behavior is not. If that's not what you meant, and you meant self-interested behavior is bad...maybe it would be good for you to learn what those who disagree with you believe before arguing against it.
So, the OWS is anti-corporate power. The Tea Part is anti-government power?
Ya know . . . wait, never mind. No, nah, you don't wanna hea . . . okay okay. It almost, it almost seems like, ya know, if these two philosophies were used in tandem that . . . I dunno, maybe, some middle ground could, ya know, maybe be found there and, if we united these philosophies with an emphasis on moderation, maybe, we could look to improve our situation?
I mean, that's probably just crazy talk. Any conservative will tell you that the right wing has it down pat, and is the moral party. But, then again, liberals seem to think the left is the way to go, and is the party that truly represents the middle class. Gosh, well, they both can't be right.
Ah, I guess the idea that solutions can be found with a more centrist point of view is asinine. What do I know? I'm just a 26-Y/O, blue collar kid from New Jersey. Just disregard my silly idea that working together to compromise two fundamentally similar, yet diametrically different ideas could somehow improve our country and appease a large majority of its honest working citizens.
I understand your point, and semi-agree, particularly when some corporate interests steer government policy. I also think government tries too hard to steer corporate interests. Nevertheless, I think the issue is these two philosophies are fundamentally against one another.
P.S. Look into Ron Paul, I think you'd like him based on this post.
I believe it's first unfair to have certain people pay more as a percentage of their income to the government. That's my opinion. I'm not a spoiled little kid. I work hard and understand others do too. They are entitled to what they earn just as much as me and just as much as you. I don't like free riding off of others. When I go out to dinner with someone who makes more than me, I pay for what I get. I don't say they should pay more because they make more. In fact, I think people who think or do that are sad.
So, that's my belief on what's fair...
I'm just going to speak on this as it's quite late.
Do the top 1% of income earners really pay more as a percentage of their earnings when they have a number of exemptions and loopholes available to them that aren't available to lower income earners? Lets not forget that you're also taxed on your expenditures which means that a middle class earner will also lose a greater percentage of their income in the form of sales tax. I'm sorry, but when the system is designed to reward the top 1% I can't agree with you. They didn't earn it; they lobbied for it. Lax regulations on financial institutions and a tax system that encourages fraudulent market practices in order to generate capital gains doesn't seem like earning something. Running a company into the ground and then taking a multi-million dollar severance package because you have the right connections doesn't seem like you've earned it either and senior AIG employees collecting millions in bonuses after the company is bailed out by the government (paid for by struggling middle-class families) always sounded like a free ride to me. These individuals have mastered the art of taking; they stopped earning it years ago.
I'm all for getting rid of loopholes. Nevertheless, even with the loopholes, on average the rich pay the most as a percentage of their income (income taxes). It's a fact. Also, generally, there's a reason loopholes or just plain evasion develop, that is taxes are too high. Do a little research on Italy and their tax system for non-US proof.
Our sales tax is pretty minimal, atleast in my state. DE has no sales tax, for instance.
I don't think you can make all your points based on what I mentioned above. The rich still pay more on average in income taxes then those who make less income.
To me, I think we're in a agreement in some areas... like it's wrong for AIG to get bonuses after they are bailout. But, my point back is they shouldn't have been bailed out. You can't give someone or an entity money and then control that money, if you're a government (look at solyndra) . I get why you'd want to, but you can't. It should have never happened. It created a moral hazard issue, and worst, it created an issue for government trying to monitor where it's money was being spent. Meanwhile, our economy was falling apart. Government is not in that business and shouldn't be. If companies are going under, let them. That's what the market is all about. These issues with corporate bonuses and whatnot would never be an issue without the bailout. That's my point. The government is the problem there. Don't bail them out. Then, if they want to engage in severance and bonus... let them... they can't if they don't have the money.
i can understand greed. it is one of the oldest human vices.
what i don't understand are the greed cheerleaders.
is it stockholm syndrome or something??
One could argue that either side is being "greedy". I know you understand the one argument for greed and the right, but there's one for greed and the left too. Think about it this way. The bottom 50% pays 3% income taxes, the top 1% pays 40% of income taxes. We have a deeply progressive tax system. Meaning, the rich are taxed more (as a percentage of their income) then the middle class. The poor are even taxed less as a percent, and in most cases have a net gain via welfare programs. So, when will it be enough? When will the government (and no offense, but you) think it's enough? When will you say ok, we're starting to tax the rich too much? One could argue that you (not trying to pick on you, but you know what I mean) are being greedy. You're taking money away from one and redistributing and still saying it's not enough. You are being greedy. That's not your money, yet you want it and you want more of it.
As for your other point, I seriously recommend you take a economics class or read why some believe self-interested behavior is good. You don't have to agree with them, but to not know "why" they believe self-interested behavior is good for the whole is not good. I'd say there is a distinction between greed and self-interested behavior (maybe that's what you meant). In those terms, I would agree that greed is bad, but self-interested behavior is not. If that's not what you meant, and you meant self-interested behavior is bad...maybe it would be good for you to learn what those who disagree with you believe before arguing against it.
how is wanting fair play for all greedy?
how is wanting to take care of the poor and unemployed greedy?
how is wanting jobs for everyone greedy?
how is wanting my kids and my grandkids to have AT LEAST AS GOOD OF A CHANCE as i had greedy?
we claim to be a "christian country" with christian values and principles, yet jesus christ would be ashamed of what he sees in this country today. he would fucking throw up if he saw what is happening, and how people are defending the wall street banksters and the wealthiest 1%. didn't he rebel against the greedy and the money changers in his father's house instead of excusing them and making apologies for them?
i am tired of reading your apologies for the way things are and making excuses for it and trying to undercut what people are trying to accomplish with this movement instead of trying to figure out how fix it.
i wouldn't stand on the tracks because as time goes on this thing is going to keep growing.
i heard on the radio today that former tea partiers like dylan ratigan are supporting this protest now, and he is finding common ground with the ows protestors AND the unions....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
we claim to be a "christian country" with christian values and principles, yet jesus christ would be ashamed of what he sees in this country today. he would fucking throw up if he saw what is happening, and how people are defending the wall street banksters and the wealthiest 1%. didn't he rebel against the greedy and the money changers in his father's house instead of excusing them and making apologies for them?
If Jesus was around now, the US would have a kill order on him, hunting him down and striking with those drones,
and another thing, the citizens united supreme court decision must be reversed.
money is not speech and corporations are not people.
it is this ruling that allows our political system to be in the situation that it is in....if that is not overturned then things are going to get much worse.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
none
who in the top 1% has had their job sent overseas?
none
who in the top 1% relies on public assistance of any sort?
none
what i am saying is the top 1% has come out much much better than everybody else in this financial crises, which some of that top 1% caused.
if that is not class warfare i don't know what is...
and why people would defend this top 1% and the bankers who would have you thrown out of your house without a second thought is beyond me....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
A bit of a sensationalist aren't we?
It's not your home. You take a mortgage out with a bank. If you can't pay, they take the house away. Shocker!!!!
The 1945 median and top 1% income were both about $2400; in 2007 dollars, that translates to about $24,000. Looking at the graph, the median income in 2001 (in 2007 dollars) is $24,000 x 2.5 ~ $60,000. The top 1% income in 2001 (in 2007 dollars) is $24,000 x 3.2 ~ $76,800.
Do we really need to see beyond 2007 since taxes are lower then they have been in 50 years?
Your point about capitol gains might hold water--I am not an economist nor did I create the chart but most of the 99% do not even have a reason to know what that means.
The chart represents a feeling in this country that the American Dream has been supplanted by the Corporate American Dream that has caused an expanding in the disparity of who controls wealth and therefore power in this country.
Many did. 100% correct. That's why the bailout was a stupid idea. I never disagreed with that assessment. I disagree with how these people are tyring to use that to justify giving them more money. On top of the 2 things not being analagous in intent, the first one was wrong, so why ask to exacerbate it?
i'm not an economist... but, i believe the numbers along the X axis are calendar years.
Hail, Hail!!!
That's EXACTLY what this is about.
1) There's no units on the x and y axis. Did a third grader make this chart?
X is a timeline.
Y is an amount (in millions, billions? I don't know, but there are numbers on the Y axis).
2) I'm assuming it's growth. Even so, you can't compare medians (median income) with averages (the top 1%, which I think is an average). This would be an example of skewing data. Change it, I'd like to see the result.
Isn't a median... an average? Take the high and the low and come up with a median. not as accurate as adding up all of the figures and dividing by the numers holding the figure. But, similar.
3) Cut out the capital gains, and let's see how that effects the chart. Capital gains affect business and create jobs, which spill back to the median income (via job creation). They are definitely pushing the top 1% up. Yet, also helping the median (but less so). They are good, but skew the results.
Are the Capital gains included to ommited?
4) Why's the data end before President Obama was elected? What's happened since?
Maybe because the chart is from 2007. I don't remember Obama being President in 2007.
5) Why is growth exactly equal in 1945? Is this data indexed? If so, that fudges the whole thing.
You'll have to analyze the raw data for that.
6) Even if there were clear cut answers to all of the above, I still don't get it. Everyone's incomes have been growing. So, if Person A's grows faster, they should be penalized? Even if Person A is paying much more as a percentage of his income in taxes already? Sorry... I don't buy it.
7) This has nothing little to nothing to do with the financial crisis / the recession,... or why people are jobless.
I thought it was supposed to point out how 1% of the population holds 20% on the wealth
Hail, Hail!!!
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=172114&p=3978788#p3978788
Perhaps the most ardent defenders of the financial and corporate elite are also members of the club. You don't try to change things when you're playing for the winning team.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
you say the tea party are not looking for handouts? they are actually looking for handouts to their health insurance companies. they are looking for handouts in that they want tax cuts below what they are now, which is the lowest thety have ever been. they are anti-tax. the ironic thing is that taxes are necessary to pay for things like police overtime, which is something that the tea party would in theory oppose and you and i know that writing to our congressman means dick. it means absolutely nothing. it accomplishes nothing. calling their office means nothing. have you ever written a letter or called a congressman? you receive some bullshit form letter thanking you for your time and for writing and expressing your opinion, and something along the lines of your representative is paying attention and is taking your opinion into consideration. calling is worse because you only ever get to speak to some stupid staffer who blows you off and i am sure never relays the message that you leave..and these protestors are NOT selfish. they are tired of taking it up the ass and losing their jobs and homes, while people like herman cain said "if you don't have a job and are not rich it is YOUR fault." they are doing this to better their life and the lives of their children.
so you don't support the tea party, and you scoff at this movement?? what is it that you stand for then? the status quo? if you stand for the status quo then either you are part of that top 1% or you are very vanilla, because you can not not support one or the other. you are going to have to take a side if you want to be active.
and this quote from you is interesting "The Wall Street Nuts (As they should be called) are all style and no substance, as the union hijacking has highlighted." i think you say that because that is the message that the mainstream media is trying to convey to you because the MAINSTREAM MEDIA THAT YOU ARE LISTENING TO IS ALL OWNED BY CORPORATIONS!!!. THE SAME COPRORATIONS THAT THE PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING, SO OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO SPERAD THE WORD TO THE MASSES THAT THE PROTESTORS ARE DISORGANIZED AND HAVE NO REAL GOALS OR PLAN OR MISSION AS A WAY TO DELEGITIMIZE AND UNDERMINE AND DISCREDIT THEIR CAUSE. does it all make sense now?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
you are saying the democratic party is going to take over? how so when most of the people are pissed off at obama and the dems for doing nothing when they had a supermajority? i think this movement is smart enough to know when some sacred cow senator shows up to show support, that that senator likely had something to do with the problem and is not a part of the solution.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Median is not average. Oftentimes it is very close. But in this case for the upper echelon it could be skewed. Median is the middle number of a series. So, if you have
1 billion, 500,000, 500,000, 500,000
500,000 is the median, something close to 250 million is the average. So you are right to be suspicious of this graph. Not that 250 million isn't a lot, but 1 billion is a lot more than 500,000. This is where Obama and his buddies go wrong.
Ok.... let's go through em...
Correct. I made a slight typo. I meant soley the y axis. What I really meant is that that has no label, so we have no clue whether the chart is representing growth or levels. Basically, this shows no professionalism. But, I believe it's growth.
No, median is not an average and one should never compare medians to averages. I'll show a simple example.... Three guys: A, B, C. A makes $10 a year. B makes $100. And C makes $1000. The median is the middle number, so it's $100. The average or mean is 370. Clearly the mean or average is inflated relative to the mean.
I don't know for sure if capital gains are included or omitted. I would put money on them being included.
If the chart is from 2007, why is it being used now without updated numbers? My point is, for all we know this "may" no longer be the case. I mean this data is pre-recession data. Why are we even discussing about it? I'd like to see the chart updated with the stuff I mentioned above accounted for.
Yep, you would. But, indexing really F's things up and that should be known.
This was posted in this occupy wall street thread as reason for the protests. Yet, the data is 2007 (before the recession) and the chart/data have tons of other issues... people are also saying the protests are due to bailouts too. These don't go with one another.
Regardless, my point is this chart has serious issues. Not saying it doesn't have data behind it that can't show something close to what it's being used for... but, these issues should be addressed. This chart, to me, shows absolutely nothing at all until those issues above are addressed. It seriously looks like a kid put this together
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I don't buy for one second that the top 1% of earners all fall under the umbrella of "corporate elite". The idea that being in the top income bracket somehow makes you smarter, harder working, and generally better than everyone else is a myth that many Americans hold as fact. The American dream has a lot of disciples.
I'll speak for myself.
I believe it's first unfair to have certain people pay more as a percentage of their income to the government. That's my opinion. I'm not a spoiled little kid. I work hard and understand others do too. They are entitled to what they earn just as much as me and just as much as you. I don't like free riding off of others. When I go out to dinner with someone who makes more than me, I pay for what I get. I don't say they should pay more because they make more. In fact, I think people who think or do that are sad.
So, that's my belief on what's fair...
But, I have more...
I know that taxing the top 1% more will hurt economic growth. The reality is the top 1% already pay 40% of income taxes. 40%.
If taxes were to go up on you, would you spend more? If you were a private owner of a business (that could hire) would you hire more if your taxes went up? Come on, use logic.... the reality is, this may be a short term gain to government revenues, but I know it would be two years down the line a disaster. Why? Because less would be spend (business and consumer). Consumer spending makes up about 70% of our economy. Decrease that, you have a recession. Decrease economic activity, you have less tax revenues. So, my thinking is, increasing taxes on the top 1% would not only be unfair, it would be detrimental to economic growth and not even help government revenues (besides a short term increase, which would immediately be followed by a large decrease with a year). Overall, it makes no sense.
The problem is not the top 1% as much as the Democratic Party tells you that. It's the government.
My saying for the 2012 election is "it's the government, stupid".
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I'm just going to speak on this as it's quite late.
Do the top 1% of income earners really pay more as a percentage of their earnings when they have a number of exemptions and loopholes available to them that aren't available to lower income earners? Lets not forget that you're also taxed on your expenditures which means that a middle class earner will also lose a greater percentage of their income in the form of sales tax. I'm sorry, but when the system is designed to reward the top 1% I can't agree with you. They didn't earn it; they lobbied for it. Lax regulations on financial institutions and a tax system that encourages fraudulent market practices in order to generate capital gains doesn't seem like earning something. Running a company into the ground and then taking a multi-million dollar severance package because you have the right connections doesn't seem like you've earned it either and senior AIG employees collecting millions in bonuses after the company is bailed out by the government (paid for by struggling middle-class families) always sounded like a free ride to me. These individuals have mastered the art of taking; they stopped earning it years ago.
Ya know . . . wait, never mind. No, nah, you don't wanna hea . . . okay okay. It almost, it almost seems like, ya know, if these two philosophies were used in tandem that . . . I dunno, maybe, some middle ground could, ya know, maybe be found there and, if we united these philosophies with an emphasis on moderation, maybe, we could look to improve our situation?
I mean, that's probably just crazy talk. Any conservative will tell you that the right wing has it down pat, and is the moral party. But, then again, liberals seem to think the left is the way to go, and is the party that truly represents the middle class. Gosh, well, they both can't be right.
Ah, I guess the idea that solutions can be found with a more centrist point of view is asinine. What do I know? I'm just a 26-Y/O, blue collar kid from New Jersey. Just disregard my silly idea that working together to compromise two fundamentally similar, yet diametrically different ideas could somehow improve our country and appease a large majority of its honest working citizens.
No need to hesitate here, johnny america. Your ideas don't sound crazy at all. The two party system doesn't seem to be working well these days. I've heard people say that being "moderate" or "centrist" doesn't work either because that means being wishy-washy and do-nothing. But maybe it depends on how you look at centrist. If you look at it as taking what works regardless of where it comes from, centrist could be radical in the sense that taking action and doing something is radical compared to going nowhere. Does that make sense? (or do I need another cup of coffe this morning? )
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
what i don't understand are the greed cheerleaders.
is it stockholm syndrome or something??
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
My wife and I were just talking about that last night- about how we are all essentially greedy because it's in our make up to self-preserve and at the same time we have the capacity to be compassionate and if we use our greed to keep us going enough to keep our compassion going it can all work. Does that make sense?
What is the "Stockholm syndrome?" I'm not familiar with that term?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
One could argue that either side is being "greedy". I know you understand the one argument for greed and the right, but there's one for greed and the left too. Think about it this way. The bottom 50% pays 3% income taxes, the top 1% pays 40% of income taxes. We have a deeply progressive tax system. Meaning, the rich are taxed more (as a percentage of their income) then the middle class. The poor are even taxed less as a percent, and in most cases have a net gain via welfare programs. So, when will it be enough? When will the government (and no offense, but you) think it's enough? When will you say ok, we're starting to tax the rich too much? One could argue that you (not trying to pick on you, but you know what I mean) are being greedy. You're taking money away from one and redistributing and still saying it's not enough. You are being greedy. That's not your money, yet you want it and you want more of it.
As for your other point, I seriously recommend you take a economics class or read why some believe self-interested behavior is good. You don't have to agree with them, but to not know "why" they believe self-interested behavior is good for the whole is not good. I'd say there is a distinction between greed and self-interested behavior (maybe that's what you meant). In those terms, I would agree that greed is bad, but self-interested behavior is not. If that's not what you meant, and you meant self-interested behavior is bad...maybe it would be good for you to learn what those who disagree with you believe before arguing against it.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I understand your point, and semi-agree, particularly when some corporate interests steer government policy. I also think government tries too hard to steer corporate interests. Nevertheless, I think the issue is these two philosophies are fundamentally against one another.
P.S. Look into Ron Paul, I think you'd like him based on this post.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I'm all for getting rid of loopholes. Nevertheless, even with the loopholes, on average the rich pay the most as a percentage of their income (income taxes). It's a fact. Also, generally, there's a reason loopholes or just plain evasion develop, that is taxes are too high. Do a little research on Italy and their tax system for non-US proof.
Our sales tax is pretty minimal, atleast in my state. DE has no sales tax, for instance.
I don't think you can make all your points based on what I mentioned above. The rich still pay more on average in income taxes then those who make less income.
To me, I think we're in a agreement in some areas... like it's wrong for AIG to get bonuses after they are bailout. But, my point back is they shouldn't have been bailed out. You can't give someone or an entity money and then control that money, if you're a government (look at solyndra) . I get why you'd want to, but you can't. It should have never happened. It created a moral hazard issue, and worst, it created an issue for government trying to monitor where it's money was being spent. Meanwhile, our economy was falling apart. Government is not in that business and shouldn't be. If companies are going under, let them. That's what the market is all about. These issues with corporate bonuses and whatnot would never be an issue without the bailout. That's my point. The government is the problem there. Don't bail them out. Then, if they want to engage in severance and bonus... let them... they can't if they don't have the money.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
how is wanting to take care of the poor and unemployed greedy?
how is wanting jobs for everyone greedy?
how is wanting my kids and my grandkids to have AT LEAST AS GOOD OF A CHANCE as i had greedy?
we claim to be a "christian country" with christian values and principles, yet jesus christ would be ashamed of what he sees in this country today. he would fucking throw up if he saw what is happening, and how people are defending the wall street banksters and the wealthiest 1%. didn't he rebel against the greedy and the money changers in his father's house instead of excusing them and making apologies for them?
i am tired of reading your apologies for the way things are and making excuses for it and trying to undercut what people are trying to accomplish with this movement instead of trying to figure out how fix it.
i wouldn't stand on the tracks because as time goes on this thing is going to keep growing.
i heard on the radio today that former tea partiers like dylan ratigan are supporting this protest now, and he is finding common ground with the ows protestors AND the unions....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
If Jesus was around now, the US would have a kill order on him, hunting him down and striking with those drones,
money is not speech and corporations are not people.
it is this ruling that allows our political system to be in the situation that it is in....if that is not overturned then things are going to get much worse.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."