8 ms·

How to Cover the One Percent

52 points by xoher 11y ago

eliben 11y ago
Top 1% is (based on http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/ http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/) >$400k / year income. The billionaires this article talks about are in much, much higher brackets - maybe something like top %0.01 * P.S. based on another source [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/01/26/what-the-top-1-percent-makes-in-every-state/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/01/26/...], it's state-dependent and the highest I see is $678k in CT
- rubidium 11y ago
  1% in journalism = the elite wealthy controlling banks, businesses and bureaucrats.
ideonexus 11y ago
Summary: The wealthy are using non-profits, charities, and foundations to push political agendas at the expense of taxpayers who are footing the bill because these institutions are also tax write-offs. The article focuses on these organizations pushing advocacy, but I would also add that many "non-profit" organizations are actually incredibly profit-focused. An early introduction to this for me was growing up next to the Christian Broadcasting Network, a charitable organization that was raking in millions of dollars selling alternative medicines, opening five-star restaurants, hosting luxurious retreats, while also raking in donations from the poor people who would tune into the show seeking god's grace [1]. I see the same thing with Mega Churches, which are springing up like fast food franchises all over the DC-Metro region. These enormous buildings are raking in profits every Sunday while giving nothing back in taxes to pay for the roads, utilities, and emergency services the community provides for them. Taxpayers are losing $71 billion a year in revenues because of these for-profit franchises [2]. It isn't just religious institutions either. I've stopped giving blood to the American Red Cross in favor of donating it directly to my local hospital so they don't have to pay the overhead that comes with Red Cross blood [3]. The DC-Metro area is packed with "non-profits" that are really for-profit companies that pay out their profits directly to CEOs and board members while sending lobbyists to the National Mall to buy expensive lunches for our Representatives. The article notes that the alternative is the European system of not providing tax-breaks for these organizations--which results in much fewer organizations. It's hard for me to accept that when I think of all the organizations I perceive as doing good in America, but maybe they aren't really doing good and are simply enjoying the good sentiments that come with the words "charity" and "non-profit?" [1] http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20070327/NEWS/703270372?Title=Lawsuit-says-evangelist-Pat-Robertson-abuses-tax-free-status-to-push-product http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20070327/NEWS/70327037... [2] http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/07/business/all-about-blood-banks-a-multibillion-dollar-business-in-a-nonprofit-world.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/07/business/all-about-blood-b...
- lmm 11y ago
  > The article notes that the alternative is the European system of not providing tax-breaks for these organizations--which results in much fewer organizations. It's hard for me to accept that when I think of all the organizations I perceive as doing good in America, but maybe they aren't really doing good and are simply enjoying the good sentiments that come with the words "charity" and "non-profit?" You've got to ask how much of those sectors' income is going to organizations that are doing good, and how much is not. And remember that taxes are used for the public good, so the bar to be tax exempt should not be merely "is this organization doing good?" but rather "is this organization doing more good per dollar than is done with general taxation?"
  - barney54 11y ago
    Is the government "doing good?" There is some good, but there is a case that non-profits such as the Red Cross, churches, food banks, are more accountable and do more good. To me non-profits do far more good per dollar than the government does through general taxation. The biggest reason why is that non-profits have a much more defined scope and mission.
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      I find it very difficult to believe that the Red Cross does more good than Medicare and Medicaid, or that food banks do more good than Food Stamps.
      - dignan 11y ago
        You're comparing an organization with a budget of about $3 billion to one with a budget of over $1 TRILLION. It's a nonsensical comparison.
    - countrybama24 11y ago
      Well they are good at different activities. Charities are good at things that can be done on a small, decentralized scale, like giving away food. Regulating massive industries, correcting the issues in our healthcare system, setting up a program of cash transfers, on the other hand, are all things that often require the scale of the government.
rubidium 11y ago
"Ten years ago, for example, Google had a one-person lobbying shop in Washington; today, it has more than one hundred lobbyists working out of an office roughly the size of the White House. " ... to the tune of $16.8 Million dollars. https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000022008 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00002200... I really like this article. It's a well-researched call to action for journalists to do real investigative work.
jnbiche 11y ago
I'm ambivalent about this article. While I agree that the hidden power of mega-philanthropists is unsettling, the hidden players of our "public" government are orders of magnitude more powerful. Frankly, differentiating between the "public" and "private" when discussing the ills of the %1 is pointless [1]. People at this level of society move in and out of the top levels of corporations and government all the time. They socialize together, intermarry, and share family bonds. Only together have big business and big government created this massive feedback loop that promotes inequality and loss of freedom for the common man. It pains me to see my "right" and "left" leaning friends blame one side of the coin while completing ignoring the damage wrought by the flip side. 1. To be clear, the top 0.01% is what the article is really referring to, since the top %1 includes people like successful everyday doctors and lawyers. Perhaps a small cadre of powerful bureaucrats at this income level could be reasonably included in the top tier group the article refers to, but for the most part, these are people who are wealthy and influential in their local communities, but decidedly not actors at the level the article describes.
- xshift 11y ago
  That's just the bizarre socialism we have in the US, where the all-powerful government is allowed to choose which corporations get contracts, and favorable legislation sets up a system where bribe-taking government workers are at the top, and corporations with strong "lobby" (bribery) powers form the second tier.
- Retric 11y ago
  Most doctors don't qualify into the top 1%. Make 422,000$ / per year in the US? Your in the 99% ;)
  - jnbiche 11y ago
    Which is why I used the term "successful" ... lawyer or doctor. But perhaps I should have added, "specialist doctor". But regardless of whether a successful doctor is in the top 1% or the top 1.2% is beside the point I am making. All these people are at a different tier of society than the societal elite this article describes. The only chance a doctor has of making it to that tier of society is too become a successful entrepreneur or politician. Practicing as a successful doctor isn't enough (even though practicing medicine may be far more useful to society).

52 points by xoher 11y ago

Top 1% is (based on http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/ http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/) >$400k / year income. The billionaires this article talks about are in much, much higher brackets - maybe something like top %0.01 * P.S. based on another source [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/01/26/what-the-top-1-percent-makes-in-every-state/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/01/26/...], it's state-dependent and the highest I see is $678k in CT

rubidium 11y ago
1% in journalism = the elite wealthy controlling banks, businesses and bureaucrats.

ideonexus 11y ago

Summary: The wealthy are using non-profits, charities, and foundations to push political agendas at the expense of taxpayers who are footing the bill because these institutions are also tax write-offs. The article focuses on these organizations pushing advocacy, but I would also add that many "non-profit" organizations are actually incredibly profit-focused. An early introduction to this for me was growing up next to the Christian Broadcasting Network, a charitable organization that was raking in millions of dollars selling alternative medicines, opening five-star restaurants, hosting luxurious retreats, while also raking in donations from the poor people who would tune into the show seeking god's grace [1]. I see the same thing with Mega Churches, which are springing up like fast food franchises all over the DC-Metro region. These enormous buildings are raking in profits every Sunday while giving nothing back in taxes to pay for the roads, utilities, and emergency services the community provides for them. Taxpayers are losing $71 billion a year in revenues because of these for-profit franchises [2]. It isn't just religious institutions either. I've stopped giving blood to the American Red Cross in favor of donating it directly to my local hospital so they don't have to pay the overhead that comes with Red Cross blood [3]. The DC-Metro area is packed with "non-profits" that are really for-profit companies that pay out their profits directly to CEOs and board members while sending lobbyists to the National Mall to buy expensive lunches for our Representatives. The article notes that the alternative is the European system of not providing tax-breaks for these organizations--which results in much fewer organizations. It's hard for me to accept that when I think of all the organizations I perceive as doing good in America, but maybe they aren't really doing good and are simply enjoying the good sentiments that come with the words "charity" and "non-profit?" [1] http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20070327/NEWS/703270372?Title=Lawsuit-says-evangelist-Pat-Robertson-abuses-tax-free-status-to-push-product http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20070327/NEWS/70327037... [2] http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/07/business/all-about-blood-banks-a-multibillion-dollar-business-in-a-nonprofit-world.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/07/business/all-about-blood-b...

lmm 11y ago
> The article notes that the alternative is the European system of not providing tax-breaks for these organizations--which results in much fewer organizations. It's hard for me to accept that when I think of all the organizations I perceive as doing good in America, but maybe they aren't really doing good and are simply enjoying the good sentiments that come with the words "charity" and "non-profit?" You've got to ask how much of those sectors' income is going to organizations that are doing good, and how much is not. And remember that taxes are used for the public good, so the bar to be tax exempt should not be merely "is this organization doing good?" but rather "is this organization doing more good per dollar than is done with general taxation?"
- barney54 11y ago
  Is the government "doing good?" There is some good, but there is a case that non-profits such as the Red Cross, churches, food banks, are more accountable and do more good. To me non-profits do far more good per dollar than the government does through general taxation. The biggest reason why is that non-profits have a much more defined scope and mission.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    I find it very difficult to believe that the Red Cross does more good than Medicare and Medicaid, or that food banks do more good than Food Stamps.
    - dignan 11y ago
      You're comparing an organization with a budget of about $3 billion to one with a budget of over $1 TRILLION. It's a nonsensical comparison.
  - countrybama24 11y ago
    Well they are good at different activities. Charities are good at things that can be done on a small, decentralized scale, like giving away food. Regulating massive industries, correcting the issues in our healthcare system, setting up a program of cash transfers, on the other hand, are all things that often require the scale of the government.

rubidium 11y ago

"Ten years ago, for example, Google had a one-person lobbying shop in Washington; today, it has more than one hundred lobbyists working out of an office roughly the size of the White House. " ... to the tune of $16.8 Million dollars. https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000022008 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00002200... I really like this article. It's a well-researched call to action for journalists to do real investigative work.

jnbiche 11y ago

I'm ambivalent about this article. While I agree that the hidden power of mega-philanthropists is unsettling, the hidden players of our "public" government are orders of magnitude more powerful. Frankly, differentiating between the "public" and "private" when discussing the ills of the %1 is pointless [1]. People at this level of society move in and out of the top levels of corporations and government all the time. They socialize together, intermarry, and share family bonds. Only together have big business and big government created this massive feedback loop that promotes inequality and loss of freedom for the common man. It pains me to see my "right" and "left" leaning friends blame one side of the coin while completing ignoring the damage wrought by the flip side. 1. To be clear, the top 0.01% is what the article is really referring to, since the top %1 includes people like successful everyday doctors and lawyers. Perhaps a small cadre of powerful bureaucrats at this income level could be reasonably included in the top tier group the article refers to, but for the most part, these are people who are wealthy and influential in their local communities, but decidedly not actors at the level the article describes.

xshift 11y ago
That's just the bizarre socialism we have in the US, where the all-powerful government is allowed to choose which corporations get contracts, and favorable legislation sets up a system where bribe-taking government workers are at the top, and corporations with strong "lobby" (bribery) powers form the second tier.
Retric 11y ago
Most doctors don't qualify into the top 1%. Make 422,000$ / per year in the US? Your in the 99% ;)
- jnbiche 11y ago
  Which is why I used the term "successful" ... lawyer or doctor. But perhaps I should have added, "specialist doctor". But regardless of whether a successful doctor is in the top 1% or the top 1.2% is beside the point I am making. All these people are at a different tier of society than the societal elite this article describes. The only chance a doctor has of making it to that tier of society is too become a successful entrepreneur or politician. Practicing as a successful doctor isn't enough (even though practicing medicine may be far more useful to society).