9 ms·

Can we just admit that we all know what the term 1% is intended to mean in context and not have this silly semantic argument again? There are real, important is

Can we just admit that we all know what the term 1% is intended to mean in context and not have this silly semantic argument again? There are real, important issues here and being pedantic distracts from the discussion.

fleitz 10y ago
I always assumed it meant the 70 million richest people on the planet, you know those rich people with college degrees who have time to hang out in parks and complain about how the world no longer treats them any better than anyone else. It seems they want their taxes increased and that money sent to Bangladesh to make for less income inequality. Despite their college degrees I suspect they are innumerate and have a difficult time understanding meanings of words that don't favor their privileged position in the world.
- turnip1979 10y ago
  Depends on the country. In many developed counties with social assistance, you will see hordes of unemployed people at the malls and at parks. Doing .. nothing. I'm all for social assistance but we are destroying the middle class.
  - fleitz 10y ago
    As far as I'm aware there are 7 billion people on the planet... Yes, the middle class in America is losing people to the upper class at a 2:1 ratio to the lower class, if this continues 66% of people will be in the upper classes in the next few generations.
  - tremon 10y ago
    you will see hordes of unemployed people at the malls and at parks. Doing .. nothing That's odd. I mostly see employed people at malls and in parks. How do you tell them apart? Or do you just assume that they're unemployed, because they're in a park, doing nothing?
  - devishard 10y ago
    I'd rather give $100 billion to 2 million people and have 1 million of them do nothing than give $100 billion to 1 person and have 1 million people starve. Social assistance programs are so meager and inexpensive compared to the cut we give to the finance industry. It's ridiculous to begrudge social assistance to people who need it just because some people who receive it don't. Frankly, I'm just not offended that some people don't work. There aren't useful things for a lot of people to do. I'm much more offended that some people are rewarded incomprehensible amounts of money which no human can possibly be worth, often for activities that are actively harmful.
- sgift 10y ago
  Translation: Hey, someone else has it even worse than you, why aren't you happy?! This completely ignores that you can be better off than someone else and still live in a shitty situation, but it sounds so nice ..
  - fleitz 10y ago
    You can be in any situation and still live in a shitty situation. That's why many philosophies boil down to: you're going to be dead soon, you might as well start enjoying it, and if you're not... well... you know what to do. Only in America would people who borrowed money to take a 4 year sabbatical be complaining about being poor.
- lovich 10y ago
  If Bangladesh wants to become part of one of these countries and follow all of their laws and regulations, then sure your argument could make some sense. Whats happening here is people railing against inequality inside of their own political systems.
retube 10y ago
I disagree. A lot of people railing against the so called 1% are in fact 1% themselves on a global basis (e.g much of the Guardian readership). They tend to be very keen for people richer than themselves to share their wealth, but despite in fact being richer than most people on earth tend not to be so keen to share their own wealth.
- noir_lord 10y ago
  Except if you look at the total taxation burden as a percentage the non-super rich already do share more of the burden. I pay a far higher percentage of my income as tax to the society I live in than the people in the panama papers.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    since people can't be straightforward about the envy driving their political beliefs we have to put up with lazy emotional hand-wringing in place of a manipulate examination. Is it your contention that this lazy hand-wringing should go unchallenged because it aligns with your personal envies?
    - noir_lord 10y ago
      Do you still beat your wife?
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      It is not envy to note that monetary velocity is down.
  - retube 10y ago
    > I pay a far higher percentage of my income as tax to the society I live in than the people in the panama papers. Well you absolutely don't know that. And whilst no doubt some people _are_ avoiding tax, many are not. And btw overall the rich pay a far higher portion of their income in tax than the poor. In the UK for example the top 1% of earners account for 30% of the total tax take (up from 20% 10 years ago). The top 3,000 pay more than the 9m bottom.
turnip1979 10y ago
No. I am sick of politicians vilyfing the 1% ... in Canada, that means a family income of around 180K. Taxes get raised, benefits get cut etc. on people who have to pay 8-12 times their income to afford houses in major cities and have massive student loan debts to service (where professional jobs are anyways). Having a tax system that is blind to local income/cost of living differences is stupid. The 1% rhetoric really needs to end. I am in the 1% and I am fucked. I'm in my late 30s .. I have no house and can barely afford one. Sorry if this sounds like whining but this system of screwing people who actually do work and generate income needs to end. Here's an idea ... lets stop taxing income and start taxing assets.
- branchless 10y ago
  You need to think about how to stop the banks creating more credit. That is absorbing all productivity gains. Forget semantics about 1% or 0.1%.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  You're not in the 1% as it is popularly used. 1% applies to wealth, not income. I hear you on the difficulty of receiving a high wage yet finding it difficult to get a foothold established. In my city's case, there are extreme amounts of outside capital flowing into Austin to try to take advantage of the hype pumped out by all the various vacuous media channels in this country. All that wealth sitting out there, being used to drive up property prices so that average working folks can't afford to live in the city they supposedly live in.
  - twoodfin 10y ago
    You're not in the 1% as it is popularly used. 1% applies to wealth, not income. This is historically inaccurate, at least for American politics. There, the use of the phrase "top 1%" goes back at least as far as debates over then-Governor George W. Bush's income tax plan in the 2000 election[1]. Gore frequently used it as 'wealthiest 1%', but he was clearly citing studies based on the income breakdown[2]. If you want somebody who will fight for you and who will fight to have middle-class tax cuts, then I am your man. I want to be. Now, I doubt anybody here makes more than $330,000 a year. I won't ask you, but if you do, you're in the top 1%. [1] http://debates.org/index.php?page=october-17-2000-debate-transcript http://debates.org/index.php?page=october-17-2000-debate-tra... [2] http://www.ctj.org/html/bush0800.htm http://www.ctj.org/html/bush0800.htm
mikeash 10y ago
It's not pedantry, it's a legitimate complaint about a term which perpetuates confusion about how wealth is distributed. What distracts from the discussion is using a term which lumps mid-career doctors in with billionaires while only talking about the billionaires.
- devishard 10y ago
  Who exactly is confused by this term? Can you point out the group that's railing against mid-career doctors and their offshore tax havens?
  - webXL 10y ago
    The people who continue to use the inexact figure is who. Why was 1% chosen and not 10% or 0.01% for that matter? And "railing against" != confusion. If enough people believe something, certain people in that group can do some pretty messed up shit without exactly "railing" first. Confusion might not be the best word, but we should avoid perpetuating the notion that the entire 1% is to blame for average people not getting ahead.
    - devishard 10y ago
      > Why was 1% chosen and not 10% or 0.01% for that matter? Because it's a simple number to write. Lay-people using this term have no idea that the 1% includes doctors and lawyers, they just assume it's ultra-rich bankers, executives, and hedge fund managers. Yes, that means that if you're incapable of understanding context it might sound like they're talking down on doctors and lawyers. But I assure you they're not. > And "railing against" != confusion. If enough people believe something, certain people in that group can do some pretty messed up shit without exactly "railing" first. What are you even saying?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Random example: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/an-economy-for-the-1/ http://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/an... That summary jumps seamlessly from a literal use of "the richest 1%" to "A global network of tax havens" without any indication that they've suddenly begun talking about a much smaller set of people. Or browse articles about the 1% on occupy.com or Huffington Post: http://www.occupy.com/tags/1 http://www.occupy.com/tags/1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/top-1-percent/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/top-1-percent/ Both sometimes use "1%" to refer to literally the top 1% wealthiest people, and sometimes to refer to the ultra rich. You can jump from a numbers-based article about where the 1% earn their money to a screed about how "the one percent" are putting out expensive videos downplaying the plight of minimum-wage workers. It's a rare political term that actually has a pretty clear meaning. It's a bit vague in that it could refer to income or net worth, and nationally or worldwide, but it's way better than stuff like "liberal" or "conservative" or "terrorist." Using such a precise term as a lazy synonym for "the ultra rich" is ridiculous.

fleitz 10y ago

I always assumed it meant the 70 million richest people on the planet, you know those rich people with college degrees who have time to hang out in parks and complain about how the world no longer treats them any better than anyone else. It seems they want their taxes increased and that money sent to Bangladesh to make for less income inequality. Despite their college degrees I suspect they are innumerate and have a difficult time understanding meanings of words that don't favor their privileged position in the world.

turnip1979 10y ago
Depends on the country. In many developed counties with social assistance, you will see hordes of unemployed people at the malls and at parks. Doing .. nothing. I'm all for social assistance but we are destroying the middle class.
- fleitz 10y ago
  As far as I'm aware there are 7 billion people on the planet... Yes, the middle class in America is losing people to the upper class at a 2:1 ratio to the lower class, if this continues 66% of people will be in the upper classes in the next few generations.
- tremon 10y ago
  you will see hordes of unemployed people at the malls and at parks. Doing .. nothing That's odd. I mostly see employed people at malls and in parks. How do you tell them apart? Or do you just assume that they're unemployed, because they're in a park, doing nothing?
- devishard 10y ago
  I'd rather give $100 billion to 2 million people and have 1 million of them do nothing than give $100 billion to 1 person and have 1 million people starve. Social assistance programs are so meager and inexpensive compared to the cut we give to the finance industry. It's ridiculous to begrudge social assistance to people who need it just because some people who receive it don't. Frankly, I'm just not offended that some people don't work. There aren't useful things for a lot of people to do. I'm much more offended that some people are rewarded incomprehensible amounts of money which no human can possibly be worth, often for activities that are actively harmful.
sgift 10y ago
Translation: Hey, someone else has it even worse than you, why aren't you happy?! This completely ignores that you can be better off than someone else and still live in a shitty situation, but it sounds so nice ..
- fleitz 10y ago
  You can be in any situation and still live in a shitty situation. That's why many philosophies boil down to: you're going to be dead soon, you might as well start enjoying it, and if you're not... well... you know what to do. Only in America would people who borrowed money to take a 4 year sabbatical be complaining about being poor.
lovich 10y ago
If Bangladesh wants to become part of one of these countries and follow all of their laws and regulations, then sure your argument could make some sense. Whats happening here is people railing against inequality inside of their own political systems.

retube 10y ago

I disagree. A lot of people railing against the so called 1% are in fact 1% themselves on a global basis (e.g much of the Guardian readership). They tend to be very keen for people richer than themselves to share their wealth, but despite in fact being richer than most people on earth tend not to be so keen to share their own wealth.

noir_lord 10y ago
Except if you look at the total taxation burden as a percentage the non-super rich already do share more of the burden. I pay a far higher percentage of my income as tax to the society I live in than the people in the panama papers.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  since people can't be straightforward about the envy driving their political beliefs we have to put up with lazy emotional hand-wringing in place of a manipulate examination. Is it your contention that this lazy hand-wringing should go unchallenged because it aligns with your personal envies?
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    Do you still beat your wife?
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    It is not envy to note that monetary velocity is down.
- retube 10y ago
  > I pay a far higher percentage of my income as tax to the society I live in than the people in the panama papers. Well you absolutely don't know that. And whilst no doubt some people _are_ avoiding tax, many are not. And btw overall the rich pay a far higher portion of their income in tax than the poor. In the UK for example the top 1% of earners account for 30% of the total tax take (up from 20% 10 years ago). The top 3,000 pay more than the 9m bottom.

turnip1979 10y ago

No. I am sick of politicians vilyfing the 1% ... in Canada, that means a family income of around 180K. Taxes get raised, benefits get cut etc. on people who have to pay 8-12 times their income to afford houses in major cities and have massive student loan debts to service (where professional jobs are anyways). Having a tax system that is blind to local income/cost of living differences is stupid. The 1% rhetoric really needs to end. I am in the 1% and I am fucked. I'm in my late 30s .. I have no house and can barely afford one. Sorry if this sounds like whining but this system of screwing people who actually do work and generate income needs to end. Here's an idea ... lets stop taxing income and start taxing assets.

branchless 10y ago
You need to think about how to stop the banks creating more credit. That is absorbing all productivity gains. Forget semantics about 1% or 0.1%.
wavefunction 10y ago
You're not in the 1% as it is popularly used. 1% applies to wealth, not income. I hear you on the difficulty of receiving a high wage yet finding it difficult to get a foothold established. In my city's case, there are extreme amounts of outside capital flowing into Austin to try to take advantage of the hype pumped out by all the various vacuous media channels in this country. All that wealth sitting out there, being used to drive up property prices so that average working folks can't afford to live in the city they supposedly live in.
- twoodfin 10y ago
  You're not in the 1% as it is popularly used. 1% applies to wealth, not income. This is historically inaccurate, at least for American politics. There, the use of the phrase "top 1%" goes back at least as far as debates over then-Governor George W. Bush's income tax plan in the 2000 election[1]. Gore frequently used it as 'wealthiest 1%', but he was clearly citing studies based on the income breakdown[2]. If you want somebody who will fight for you and who will fight to have middle-class tax cuts, then I am your man. I want to be. Now, I doubt anybody here makes more than $330,000 a year. I won't ask you, but if you do, you're in the top 1%. [1] http://debates.org/index.php?page=october-17-2000-debate-transcript http://debates.org/index.php?page=october-17-2000-debate-tra... [2] http://www.ctj.org/html/bush0800.htm http://www.ctj.org/html/bush0800.htm

mikeash 10y ago

It's not pedantry, it's a legitimate complaint about a term which perpetuates confusion about how wealth is distributed. What distracts from the discussion is using a term which lumps mid-career doctors in with billionaires while only talking about the billionaires.

devishard 10y ago
Who exactly is confused by this term? Can you point out the group that's railing against mid-career doctors and their offshore tax havens?
- webXL 10y ago
  The people who continue to use the inexact figure is who. Why was 1% chosen and not 10% or 0.01% for that matter? And "railing against" != confusion. If enough people believe something, certain people in that group can do some pretty messed up shit without exactly "railing" first. Confusion might not be the best word, but we should avoid perpetuating the notion that the entire 1% is to blame for average people not getting ahead.
  - devishard 10y ago
    > Why was 1% chosen and not 10% or 0.01% for that matter? Because it's a simple number to write. Lay-people using this term have no idea that the 1% includes doctors and lawyers, they just assume it's ultra-rich bankers, executives, and hedge fund managers. Yes, that means that if you're incapable of understanding context it might sound like they're talking down on doctors and lawyers. But I assure you they're not. > And "railing against" != confusion. If enough people believe something, certain people in that group can do some pretty messed up shit without exactly "railing" first. What are you even saying?
- mikeash 10y ago
  Random example: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/an-economy-for-the-1/ http://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/an... That summary jumps seamlessly from a literal use of "the richest 1%" to "A global network of tax havens" without any indication that they've suddenly begun talking about a much smaller set of people. Or browse articles about the 1% on occupy.com or Huffington Post: http://www.occupy.com/tags/1 http://www.occupy.com/tags/1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/top-1-percent/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/top-1-percent/ Both sometimes use "1%" to refer to literally the top 1% wealthiest people, and sometimes to refer to the ultra rich. You can jump from a numbers-based article about where the 1% earn their money to a screed about how "the one percent" are putting out expensive videos downplaying the plight of minimum-wage workers. It's a rare political term that actually has a pretty clear meaning. It's a bit vague in that it could refer to income or net worth, and nationally or worldwide, but it's way better than stuff like "liberal" or "conservative" or "terrorist." Using such a precise term as a lazy synonym for "the ultra rich" is ridiculous.