Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Exact same line that stood out the most in the entire rap.. Interesting coincidence..
The 99%- occupy movement- lacking focus and organisation!
- Thread starter joey555
- Start date
Gastanker
Well-Known Member
In someone else words: http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/
The U.S. tax debate tends to focus on the top 1 percent — their share of income taxes and their tax rates. Anti-tax groups encourage this focus, now embraced by the Occupy demonstrators on Wall Street and across America.
Problem is, the top 1 percent is a very misleading measure of who pays federal income taxes. It mixes doctors and billionaires, masking the taxes paid by the middle class and the affluent.
Everyone seems to know that about half of Americans paid no income taxes in 2009 and that the top 1 percent paid about 37 percent of the income taxes.
But how many people know that households making less than $75,000 collectively paid more federal income tax than those making $1 million or more?
Or that income taxed at the next-to-lowest rate, 15 percent, brought in more government revenue than all capital gains taxes plus the two top brackets, which apply only to the top 2 percent of earners?
Or that almost half of the top 1 percent made less than $500,000? Or that five out of six made less than $1 million?
The fact is that the government relies far more on the bottom 99 percent than the top 1 percent for federal income taxes.
You're totally correct that the majority of taxes are paid the the lower percentage earner by the jobs provided by the upper-medium percentage earners using the equiptment only the top .01% can afford to develop.
The U.S. tax debate tends to focus on the top 1 percent — their share of income taxes and their tax rates. Anti-tax groups encourage this focus, now embraced by the Occupy demonstrators on Wall Street and across America.
Problem is, the top 1 percent is a very misleading measure of who pays federal income taxes. It mixes doctors and billionaires, masking the taxes paid by the middle class and the affluent.
Everyone seems to know that about half of Americans paid no income taxes in 2009 and that the top 1 percent paid about 37 percent of the income taxes.
But how many people know that households making less than $75,000 collectively paid more federal income tax than those making $1 million or more?
Or that income taxed at the next-to-lowest rate, 15 percent, brought in more government revenue than all capital gains taxes plus the two top brackets, which apply only to the top 2 percent of earners?
Or that almost half of the top 1 percent made less than $500,000? Or that five out of six made less than $1 million?
The fact is that the government relies far more on the bottom 99 percent than the top 1 percent for federal income taxes.
You're totally correct that the majority of taxes are paid the the lower percentage earner by the jobs provided by the upper-medium percentage earners using the equiptment only the top .01% can afford to develop.
joey555
New Member
also on another note, i hate this trickle down shit- VODOO ECONOMICS, yes it does happen, but models on cosmopolitain does not create jobs, PARIS HILTON DOESN'T CREATE JOBS.
read C.WRIGHT MILLS " THE POWER ELITE" ; a famous sociologist who did a very famous study btwn 3 arenas of power and how they perpetuate it- the politicians, corporations, and military industrial complex. this book was wriiten in circa 1950. it still HAS RELEVENACE 2-DAY AND STILL ADDRESSES ISSUES THAT WERE NOT SOLVED THEN.....READ THAT BOOK WHEN U GET A CHANCE.
in someone elses word's: It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall.
Inequality
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.- VANITY FAIR MAG.
see i define top1% of ppl. who have net-worth of 50 to 100 million or more. then tp 10 and so on. but these top 1% ppl. are the ppl. im defining as holding almost 85% of the nation's wealth. we all know that the literal definition is 380k but that is wrong. just b/c the IRS says so doesn't make it so. just like the CBO AND OMB argue over what is better sometimes.
it's all in the definition and control of the nation's capital
read C.WRIGHT MILLS " THE POWER ELITE" ; a famous sociologist who did a very famous study btwn 3 arenas of power and how they perpetuate it- the politicians, corporations, and military industrial complex. this book was wriiten in circa 1950. it still HAS RELEVENACE 2-DAY AND STILL ADDRESSES ISSUES THAT WERE NOT SOLVED THEN.....READ THAT BOOK WHEN U GET A CHANCE.
in someone elses word's: It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall.
Inequality
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.- VANITY FAIR MAG.
see i define top1% of ppl. who have net-worth of 50 to 100 million or more. then tp 10 and so on. but these top 1% ppl. are the ppl. im defining as holding almost 85% of the nation's wealth. we all know that the literal definition is 380k but that is wrong. just b/c the IRS says so doesn't make it so. just like the CBO AND OMB argue over what is better sometimes.
it's all in the definition and control of the nation's capital
Gastanker
Well-Known Member
Tax exemptions are super tricky - and there are so many forms, and they apply to so many different industries, wealth margins, ... Hell why do you think half of America paid no tax. But to get into each of the nitty gritty issues with the hundreds of thousands of tax breaks and loop holes would take a life time.
1. "US Census Bureau, Median household income 1990": states that as households tend to share a similar economic context, the use of household income remains among the most widely accepted measures of income. That the size of a household is not commonly taken into account in such measures may distort any analysis of fluctuations within or among the household income categories, and may render direct comparisons between quintiles difficult or even impossible........
This means that many households fall into the top tax bracket not because the head of the household makes $380+ but because the combined wealth of the entire household is $380+. Say I earn $180k, my wife earns $100k, and son and daughter who are both dependents earn $50k each. If we file as a household then we are those terrible 1%ers - even though none of us make more than $200k a year.
Not sure how this fell into your agruement at all though. How does a blurb about how household income isn't reliable have anything to do with anything.
see i define top1% of ppl. who have net-worth of 50 to 100 million or more. then tp 10 and so on. but these top 1% ppl. are the ppl. im defining as holding almost 85% of the nation's wealth. we all know that the literal definition is 380k but that is wrong. just b/c the IRS says so doesn't make it so. just like the CBO AND OMB argue over what is better sometimes.
You are defining? Because you say so we should believe that the IRS is doctoring it's numbers? Arguing over what they think is best policy is very different than arguing the sum of a tally...
How many billionaires do you think exist in America? 3 million? 1% of the population is 3 million people... Are there 3 million top CEOs? How many companies can you think of worth just half a billion dollars? 1000? 5000? One million? Can you think of 3 million, billion dollar companies?
If you are only talking about the top 0.01%, which hold ~35% of the wealth, then state that you are talking about the top 0.01%, that hold ~35% of the wealth...
According to Forbes (who you probably also thinks doctors their numbers), there are about 400 billionaires in America. And that's net worth - so if you owned a 990 million dollar company, and had two modest 4 bedroom houses in the Bay Area of California, you would be on the list. This doesn't mean they have anywhere close to that much in liquid assets and could actually be in the process of bankruptcy in which case they would end up near penniless.
"The number of ultra-high-net-worth households, which Spectrem defines as those with $5 million or more in investable assets, increased 8 percent to 1.1 million in 2010"
So having, not earning, 5 million puts you in the top 0.03%. 0.03% and still not anywhere close to making 50 million.
joey555
New Member
TRY NOT TO BE LAZY ....and please read.
Wealth, Income, and Power
by G. William Domhoff
This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.
Some of the information may come as a surprise to many people. In fact, I know it will be a surprise and then some, because of a recent study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) showing that most Americans (high income or low income, female or male, young or old, Republican or Democrat) have no idea just how concentrated the wealth distribution actually is. More on that a bit later.
As far as the income distribution, the most striking numbers on income inequality will come last, showing the dramatic change in the ratio of the average CEO's paycheck to that of the average factory worker over the past 40 years.
First, though, some definitions. Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (see Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth -- also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."
We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)
This document focuses on the "Top 1%" as a whole because that's been the traditional cut-off point for "the top" in academic studies, and because it's easy for us to keep in mind that we are talking about one in a hundred. But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand. (To get an idea of the differences, take a look at an insider account by a long-time investment manager who works for the well-to-do and very rich. It nicely explains what the different levels have -- and how they got it. Also, David Cay Johnston (2011) has written a column about the differences among the top 1%, based on 2009 IRS information.)
As you read through the facts and figures that follow, please keep in mind that they are usually two or three years out of date because it takes time for one set of experts to collect the basic information and make sure it is accurate, and then still more time for another set of experts to analyze it and write their reports. It's also the case that the infamous housing bubble of the first eight years of the 21st century inflated some of the wealth numbers. The important point to keep in mind is that it's the relative positions of wealth holders and income earners that we are trying to comprehend in this document. (To get some idea about absolute dollar amounts, read the investment manager's insider account that was mentioned in the previous paragraph.)
So far there are only tentative projections -- based on the price of housing and stock in July 2009 -- on the effects of the Great Recession on the wealth distribution. They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007. (See Wolff, 2010 for more details.)
There's also some general information available on median income and percentage of people below the poverty line in 2010. As might be expected, most of the new information shows declines; in fact, a report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (2011) concludes that the decade from 2000 to 2010 was a "lost decade" for most Americans.
One final general point before turning to the specifics. People who have looked at this document in the past often asked whether progressive taxation reduces some of the income inequality that exists before taxes are paid. The answer: not by much, if we count all of the taxes that people pay, from sales taxes to property taxes to payroll taxes (in other words, not just income taxes). And the top 1% of income earners actually pay a smaller percentage of their incomes to taxes than the 9% just below them. These findings are discussed in detail near the end of this document.
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).
the site for the rest that compares the WHOLE WORLD= http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html he is a sociologist prof. @ UCSC.
Wealth, Income, and Power
by G. William Domhoff
This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.
Some of the information may come as a surprise to many people. In fact, I know it will be a surprise and then some, because of a recent study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) showing that most Americans (high income or low income, female or male, young or old, Republican or Democrat) have no idea just how concentrated the wealth distribution actually is. More on that a bit later.
As far as the income distribution, the most striking numbers on income inequality will come last, showing the dramatic change in the ratio of the average CEO's paycheck to that of the average factory worker over the past 40 years.
First, though, some definitions. Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (see Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth -- also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."
We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)
This document focuses on the "Top 1%" as a whole because that's been the traditional cut-off point for "the top" in academic studies, and because it's easy for us to keep in mind that we are talking about one in a hundred. But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand. (To get an idea of the differences, take a look at an insider account by a long-time investment manager who works for the well-to-do and very rich. It nicely explains what the different levels have -- and how they got it. Also, David Cay Johnston (2011) has written a column about the differences among the top 1%, based on 2009 IRS information.)
As you read through the facts and figures that follow, please keep in mind that they are usually two or three years out of date because it takes time for one set of experts to collect the basic information and make sure it is accurate, and then still more time for another set of experts to analyze it and write their reports. It's also the case that the infamous housing bubble of the first eight years of the 21st century inflated some of the wealth numbers. The important point to keep in mind is that it's the relative positions of wealth holders and income earners that we are trying to comprehend in this document. (To get some idea about absolute dollar amounts, read the investment manager's insider account that was mentioned in the previous paragraph.)
So far there are only tentative projections -- based on the price of housing and stock in July 2009 -- on the effects of the Great Recession on the wealth distribution. They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007. (See Wolff, 2010 for more details.)
There's also some general information available on median income and percentage of people below the poverty line in 2010. As might be expected, most of the new information shows declines; in fact, a report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (2011) concludes that the decade from 2000 to 2010 was a "lost decade" for most Americans.
One final general point before turning to the specifics. People who have looked at this document in the past often asked whether progressive taxation reduces some of the income inequality that exists before taxes are paid. The answer: not by much, if we count all of the taxes that people pay, from sales taxes to property taxes to payroll taxes (in other words, not just income taxes). And the top 1% of income earners actually pay a smaller percentage of their incomes to taxes than the 9% just below them. These findings are discussed in detail near the end of this document.
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).
the site for the rest that compares the WHOLE WORLD= http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html he is a sociologist prof. @ UCSC.
joey555
New Member
JESUS......HOW THE HELL R U???? geez haven't seen u in a while. good you-tube....the guy is right mostly! b/c some ppl. do not take into acct. that lower class or public assistance recievers pay NO TAXES......
BUT THE CLEVEAGE IS THERE AND IT IS REAL. no one advocates punishing success. just fair tax rates and mitigate the income disparity.
joey555
New Member
im not getting into fractions and intergers. 1% is 1%.
380K IS NOT 1%. IT IS ACCORDING TO THE IRS. agin there is alot at play here, take into acct. the u.s. census.
so are u telling me that me that the top 1% do not control almost 80% of the nations wealth?
wing inequality in the distribution of wealth has serious implications for the kind of society we live in. Today, the average American family's wealth adds up to a comparatively meager $52,200, typically tied up in a home and some small investments. While Forbes magazine each year keeps listing record numbers of billionaires--in 1994 Forbes counted 65 of them in the U.S.--homeownership has been slipping since the mid-1970s. The percentage of Americans with private pensions has also been dropping. And, with their real incomes squeezed, middle-income families have not been putting savings aside for retirement. The number of young Americans going to college has also begun to decline, another indirect sign of the same underlying phenomenon. In fact, international data now indicate that wealth is more unequally distributed in the U.S. than in other developed countries.
that is another thing. see the IRS figures don't don't take into acct. other dynamics at play, like switching ppl. off pensions and into 401k. it was a ploy in the 80's capitalist (i like capitalism w/ restraints) to get ppl. off pensions and used said 401k to invest.......well ppl. lost or has monumental diminishing yields on there 401 in 2008. next is privatizing social security...the writing is on the wall. "they" - AIG, BOA, GOLDMS, KOCK BROS. all want to consolidate wealth and increase profit margins. to do so means STEPPING ON THE BACKS OF THE BRUISED OF THE MIDDLE CLASS. lower class pays no tax, wealthy pay little, and at times in patriotic affairs should pay more.
380K IS NOT 1%. IT IS ACCORDING TO THE IRS. agin there is alot at play here, take into acct. the u.s. census.
so are u telling me that me that the top 1% do not control almost 80% of the nations wealth?
wing inequality in the distribution of wealth has serious implications for the kind of society we live in. Today, the average American family's wealth adds up to a comparatively meager $52,200, typically tied up in a home and some small investments. While Forbes magazine each year keeps listing record numbers of billionaires--in 1994 Forbes counted 65 of them in the U.S.--homeownership has been slipping since the mid-1970s. The percentage of Americans with private pensions has also been dropping. And, with their real incomes squeezed, middle-income families have not been putting savings aside for retirement. The number of young Americans going to college has also begun to decline, another indirect sign of the same underlying phenomenon. In fact, international data now indicate that wealth is more unequally distributed in the U.S. than in other developed countries.
that is another thing. see the IRS figures don't don't take into acct. other dynamics at play, like switching ppl. off pensions and into 401k. it was a ploy in the 80's capitalist (i like capitalism w/ restraints) to get ppl. off pensions and used said 401k to invest.......well ppl. lost or has monumental diminishing yields on there 401 in 2008. next is privatizing social security...the writing is on the wall. "they" - AIG, BOA, GOLDMS, KOCK BROS. all want to consolidate wealth and increase profit margins. to do so means STEPPING ON THE BACKS OF THE BRUISED OF THE MIDDLE CLASS. lower class pays no tax, wealthy pay little, and at times in patriotic affairs should pay more.
Gastanker
Well-Known Member
Well if you change taxes for the top 1% - and the IRS includes those making 380k in the top 1%, then those making 380k are included in your revisions for the top 1%... As simple as that.
Did you read the article you just published? Aside from saying that those with more saving fare better in a down market - it has little to do with this arguement aside from defining the top 1% as those generally making less than 500k - the MAJORITY of the top 1% makes far less than 1 million a year.
You realize your original arguement was that Michael Moore wasn't in the top 1%? Well not "you're 1%" because he didn't have enough money. Didn't you just redefine (as if you can just define things) 1% for us as those with 50-100 million? I'm sure you will now admit that he is in the top 0.01%
Did you read the article you just published? Aside from saying that those with more saving fare better in a down market - it has little to do with this arguement aside from defining the top 1% as those generally making less than 500k - the MAJORITY of the top 1% makes far less than 1 million a year.
You realize your original arguement was that Michael Moore wasn't in the top 1%? Well not "you're 1%" because he didn't have enough money. Didn't you just redefine (as if you can just define things) 1% for us as those with 50-100 million? I'm sure you will now admit that he is in the top 0.01%
joey555
New Member
Problem is, the top 1 percent is a very misleading measure of who pays federal income taxes. It mixes doctors and billionaires, masking the taxes paid by the middle class and the affluent.
see i agree w/ that.
no, the tax code needs to be fixed thats why ppl. who argue this point can hide behind an agencies numbers. my original argument was not w/ MM....I MENTIONED HIM IN PASSING.
THIS WHOLE THREAD WAS CRITIQUING THE 99% MOVMENT. see? comprehension skills are required, u were getting into the MM thing w/ someone else, i mentioned him in passing.
,my main point is gross wealth inequality, fixing the tax code to reflect the true definition of wealth why do u think the there are loop-holes. some loopholes are legit i.e. to give incentive to green energy etc. but for the most prt the definition needs to be changed.
see i agree w/ that.
no, the tax code needs to be fixed thats why ppl. who argue this point can hide behind an agencies numbers. my original argument was not w/ MM....I MENTIONED HIM IN PASSING.
THIS WHOLE THREAD WAS CRITIQUING THE 99% MOVMENT. see? comprehension skills are required, u were getting into the MM thing w/ someone else, i mentioned him in passing.
,my main point is gross wealth inequality, fixing the tax code to reflect the true definition of wealth why do u think the there are loop-holes. some loopholes are legit i.e. to give incentive to green energy etc. but for the most prt the definition needs to be changed.
joey555
New Member
i gotta go, will resume in a more coherent fashion when im not stoned....sorry
i can care less about MM, i like his docs, other then that he likes to be provokative but informative as well.
no he would not be a 0.01%er. lol
try more like Forbes, congressman darrel ISSA (sic) richest congressman, KOCH BROS. GATES, WARREN, BRANSON, ETC.
i can care less about MM, i like his docs, other then that he likes to be provokative but informative as well.
no he would not be a 0.01%er. lol
try more like Forbes, congressman darrel ISSA (sic) richest congressman, KOCH BROS. GATES, WARREN, BRANSON, ETC.
Gastanker
Well-Known Member
I'm going to pretend I am a conspiracy theorists like you. Lets say that that all people only declare half of their income (this takes care of the tax right offs), next lets say that the IRS for some reason deflates earning by 500% just for the fuck of lying to us. So the reported 1% earning a reported $380k are actually making 3.8 mil. So far we've taken the reported income and multiplied it by 10 - pretty safe to say the IRS isn't off by more than 1000% right?
Wait... at 3.8 million (ten times what is reported) the 1% still isn't making the 50-100 million you "defined" the top 1% as making...
I'm going to guess that according to the IRS you make between 30-100k a year. So you actually make $300,000-1mil a year in real life right? No?
INCOME GROUPS IN THE U.S. 2004 Median — $25,076 Top 10% — $87,334 Top 5% — $120,212 Top 1% — $277,983 Top 0.5% — $397,949 Top 0.1% — $1,134,849 Top 0.01% — $5,349,795
50 million is much more than the 5 mil he needs to be in the top 0.01%... Even if you want to be a conspiracy theorist and multiply the reported number by 500%
Billionaires are in the top .00000013% of the population (divide 400 by 3million - pretty simple). Wouldn't it make sense then that multi multi millionaires could be in the top 0.01%?
You've obviously been to school - don't let the math confuse you. There is no way that you believe 1 in 100 of the people you see walking around (you said you live in a metropolitan area so more like 5 in 100) are worth more than 5 million. One in 100 of the people you see being worth 50-100 million!? Give me a break. Isn't it a little more likely that 1 in 100 of the people around you is a doctor, lawyer, investor, small business owner, or the recipient of inheritance? Chances are they pay twice the income tax, twice the property tax, twice the mortgage of those around them and come out only just above the rest. How did they get there? Working their asses off, year and years of school, eating ramen to save up for capital... pretty regular people.
Do the math and then hate the 0.01% or the billionaires - the .00000013%, but to demand more from the 1%...that's just silliness.
Some of the people on this forum belong to the 1% and they don't pay any taxes...
Wait... at 3.8 million (ten times what is reported) the 1% still isn't making the 50-100 million you "defined" the top 1% as making...
I'm going to guess that according to the IRS you make between 30-100k a year. So you actually make $300,000-1mil a year in real life right? No?
INCOME GROUPS IN THE U.S. 2004 Median — $25,076 Top 10% — $87,334 Top 5% — $120,212 Top 1% — $277,983 Top 0.5% — $397,949 Top 0.1% — $1,134,849 Top 0.01% — $5,349,795
50 million is much more than the 5 mil he needs to be in the top 0.01%... Even if you want to be a conspiracy theorist and multiply the reported number by 500%
Billionaires are in the top .00000013% of the population (divide 400 by 3million - pretty simple). Wouldn't it make sense then that multi multi millionaires could be in the top 0.01%?
You've obviously been to school - don't let the math confuse you. There is no way that you believe 1 in 100 of the people you see walking around (you said you live in a metropolitan area so more like 5 in 100) are worth more than 5 million. One in 100 of the people you see being worth 50-100 million!? Give me a break. Isn't it a little more likely that 1 in 100 of the people around you is a doctor, lawyer, investor, small business owner, or the recipient of inheritance? Chances are they pay twice the income tax, twice the property tax, twice the mortgage of those around them and come out only just above the rest. How did they get there? Working their asses off, year and years of school, eating ramen to save up for capital... pretty regular people.
Do the math and then hate the 0.01% or the billionaires - the .00000013%, but to demand more from the 1%...that's just silliness.
Some of the people on this forum belong to the 1% and they don't pay any taxes...
joey555
New Member
GAS- WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE. THAT SAID THE AGGREGATE OF THE PPL IN AMERICA WILL MOST LIKELY AGRRE THAT THE DEFINITION OF WEALTH is not correct and does not reflect the true nature and dynamics at play when estimating what rich means. remember when, in the political debate w/ MCcain, the moderator ask what is rich to him. he replied " idon't know..... five million".
U SEE WHAT i mean? no be/c ur determined to believe that im a conspiracy theorist, iam not- far from it. Actually im very much in the center. i do not genuflect b-4 PRESIDENT OBAMA!
i take issue w/ him as well. so lets get this right, just like many statistics out there, and im sure in ur senior yr. u took prob&stats, u know numbers can be manipulated.
i told u what my family makes.....again u wrote 30-100k, u should have, if u were reading in a comprehensive, logical way (some of this, albeit, is my fault b/c i jumped around too, b/c interfacing on a p.c. is harder then in person or phone) u would have recalled that. just like when u said i argued about MM, i used his name in passing it was u and another person who were bickering about MM ~micheal moore.
best wishes.......................................joey ***gotta go to the post office so i can mail something to someone on here @ RIU.
p/s DON'T FORGET~ check out>https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/425185-doggies-nuts-armeggedon-more-money-2417.html#post6609041 iam there alot,plus there is a wealth of info on cultivating M.J. peace.
U SEE WHAT i mean? no be/c ur determined to believe that im a conspiracy theorist, iam not- far from it. Actually im very much in the center. i do not genuflect b-4 PRESIDENT OBAMA!
i take issue w/ him as well. so lets get this right, just like many statistics out there, and im sure in ur senior yr. u took prob&stats, u know numbers can be manipulated.
i told u what my family makes.....again u wrote 30-100k, u should have, if u were reading in a comprehensive, logical way (some of this, albeit, is my fault b/c i jumped around too, b/c interfacing on a p.c. is harder then in person or phone) u would have recalled that. just like when u said i argued about MM, i used his name in passing it was u and another person who were bickering about MM ~micheal moore.
best wishes.......................................joey ***gotta go to the post office so i can mail something to someone on here @ RIU.
p/s DON'T FORGET~ check out>https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/425185-doggies-nuts-armeggedon-more-money-2417.html#post6609041 iam there alot,plus there is a wealth of info on cultivating M.J. peace.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It's hard to take anyone seriously about anything if they use poor grammar, punctuation and spelling. It makes one think 'well if _____ can't even take the time to write things correctly, even on an anonymous cannabis forum, what would make you think I think you're serious, or it's a serious issue?'..
Punctuation, capitals, etc. .. Makes a huge difference.
Now the question is are you going to take what I just said as the constructive criticism it was meant as, or complain about me being a grammar nazi and miss the point completely?
Your move, and nothing personal.
Punctuation, capitals, etc. .. Makes a huge difference.
Now the question is are you going to take what I just said as the constructive criticism it was meant as, or complain about me being a grammar nazi and miss the point completely?
Your move, and nothing personal.
joey555
New Member
it's called "informal", my grammer is fine, and i can articulate and puncuate well, so i mispell, my punctuation and grammer is off. so what? u get the point and that is what matters.
let me finish by saying something SERIOUS: TO TAKE ONE SERIOUSLY IS TO MAKE SOMETHING SERIOUS OUT OF THEM- if it don't apply let it fly.......if it does....well
LMBO...HAHA. best wishes................joey.
the funny thing is that ur participating on the thread and thats what is important to have ppl. like urself pointing out ppl.'s grammatical errors and 1 day i hope to reach the apex of life like u and be a wordsmith and intellectual juggernaught
let me finish by saying something SERIOUS: TO TAKE ONE SERIOUSLY IS TO MAKE SOMETHING SERIOUS OUT OF THEM- if it don't apply let it fly.......if it does....well
LMBO...HAHA. best wishes................joey.
the funny thing is that ur participating on the thread and thats what is important to have ppl. like urself pointing out ppl.'s grammatical errors and 1 day i hope to reach the apex of life like u and be a wordsmith and intellectual juggernaught
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Just call me Nostradamus.
I'm convinced this kid can't be over 18.
I'm convinced this kid can't be over 18.
joey555
New Member
uh, just call ya a jerk, for real.
u can insult me all u want...but look @ ya! ur a moderator busting my stones over a thread about a movement. Son, in the grand scheme of things, i don't care what u think.
im convinced the higgs-boson exisit....make me right?
so ur convinced im 18, well u probally spend alot of time on here, maybe a few friends, but mostly insulated and socially inept. affected by the fact ur so use to using a p.c to interface, not realizing the implication words represent in terms of inflection in a person's voice; the change in pitch and tone...i.e. like sarcasim etc.
my daughter is convinced santa exsist......does that make it so.
opinions are like so many things but u keep playing urself it could be apparent that 1 of those things are u.
best wishes.................joey
u can insult me all u want...but look @ ya! ur a moderator busting my stones over a thread about a movement. Son, in the grand scheme of things, i don't care what u think.
im convinced the higgs-boson exisit....make me right?
so ur convinced im 18, well u probally spend alot of time on here, maybe a few friends, but mostly insulated and socially inept. affected by the fact ur so use to using a p.c to interface, not realizing the implication words represent in terms of inflection in a person's voice; the change in pitch and tone...i.e. like sarcasim etc.
my daughter is convinced santa exsist......does that make it so.
opinions are like so many things but u keep playing urself it could be apparent that 1 of those things are u.
best wishes.................joey
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Did you miss paragraph #3 on post #116?