jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (23 posts)

The State is the 1%

  1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Here's an article that kind of highlights the logic behind how the Tea Party and OWS are similar:

    They both hate the bloated Mercantilist state.

    http://mises.org/daily/5776/The-State-Is-the-1-Percent

    The STATE is the 1%

  2. Daniel Carter profile image92
    Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago

    The State may embrace the 1% percent idea, but in reality how well is that working for them? Most governments around the world are bankrupt or nearly bankrupt.

    Yes, parasitic they are. On the premise that collecting revenues is for betterment causes of the population. This is a two-edged sword, really. What sort of system should there be if this one is corrupt as well? Should every individual be on their own? If so, then it destroys the ideas of community purpose and living.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hey! good to see you again!

      I have a hub I'd like your opinion on it poses a possible solution, to this social situation. (trying very hard not to self promote)

  3. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    What a lot of gobbly gook. Beats me. Must be a libertarian.

  4. Aficionada profile image94
    Aficionadaposted 5 years ago

    Yesterday I read an article about what amount of money puts an individual into the "1%" - it is a lot less than some of us (including me) realize.  At this date in 2011, it only takes roughly $350,000 annual income to put someone into the One Percent.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I asked in another thread for a definition of the 1%(or definition of rich) . To me, the 1% is the richest one percent globally, not nationally. If $350,000 is the annual income of the 1%, then, maybe, the protesters should be aiming at the .01%, or the multibillionaires.  I think that's who the protesters are aiming at. IMHO

      1. Aficionada profile image94
        Aficionadaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think that what you are saying is very insightful - that is, as we personally try to define what the terms mean, we may come up with a non-factual definition. 

        It would be appropriate and helpful (IMO) for the protestors to revise their slogan.  Even if they aim at multi-billionaires, that will include people like Oprah Winfrey.  I heard statistics recently which indicated that in the (currently defined) 1%, only a very small percentage actually work in the area of finance.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, I agree, in another thread I suggested that if new tax laws were to be implemented they should include celebrities. They should be inclusive. Corporations do not necessarily work in the area of finance though. I think a definition would be really helpful, for the cause, and for the specifics of the movement. I don't think the mega rich should pay more than others, just their fair share, as a percentage of income.

  5. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    I think they put it like this:
    "42 percent of financial wealth is controlled by the top 1 percent."

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks Knolyourself smile That also brings me back to another question I asked. How much wealth do the 1% create, and how much do they hawk on the wealth creators?

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not financial wealth. That would be a mistake.

      A lot of that "Wealth" is capital goods.

      If you were to kill Bill Gates and divvy up his loot, a lot of people would end up with screws and nails. Maybe a hammer.

  6. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    I was on twitter early today and a senator tweeted out an interesting stat-

    400 of America's richest families made more in one year's time than 150 million other families. hmm

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I actually don't have a problem with that. Providing that exploitation was not involved in accumulating their wealth, and they pay the same percentage of tax that others do.

  7. Aficionada profile image94
    Aficionadaposted 5 years ago

    @Hollie - I'm all for fairness!

    @Evan - I scanned the linked article and found it quite interesting.  Sorry that we've been assuming the 1% in the title of this thread means the same as the OWS slogan!

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Evan has trouble differentiating between things. He loves to be unclear in his statements. lol

      1. Aficionada profile image94
        Aficionadaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        In this case, he posted a link to an article in which the writer said that actually those who run everything (the 1%) are the government workers at the federal level.  It was not Evan who was unclear in this situation.  I'm guessing that most of us who are posting in this thread have not really read the linked article.

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That still doesn't change the fact that Evan does post things in the forums, just to get a rise out of people, by twisting things. wink

          1. Aficionada profile image94
            Aficionadaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hmmmm.  I've noticed that he's not the only one who does that.

            wink

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I'm sure. I've seen plenty of people do it. wink

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Whatevs.

        2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sorry Aficionada, but I've just read the link again. It is completely partisan, without any substance or credible evidence. Complete and utter distortion. Like you, I'm also for fairness. This link is quite insulting, to those who are willing to examine evidence. There is none.

  8. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "How much wealth do the 1% create, and how much do they hawk on the wealth creators?" They own
    things. Some families in America own whole counties. Might say they rent everything. This creates wealth for themselves. If you rent a storefront you may create wealth without having to build the infrastructure. Course they can run
    you out by raising the rent.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Are they hawkers smile Me thinks so.

 
working