Ok, so who IS the 1% ?

I've heard anyone who makes over $500,000 yearly, and I've heard anyone with net worth more than 9 million.
Both of these seem a bit extreme to me... what is the real figure?

me

Stop oppressing me, >>2!  You're keeping me down!

The true "1%" are people who got rich because of corporatism aka those who only got rich because of ridiculously favored government  contracts and favoritism.

Ask the average #OWS'er though?...Well then they're pretty much anybody in the country who have something that you don't have and can't get, but somehow think that they don't deserve to have whether they worked for it or not.

>Ok, so who IS the 1% ?

Obama, Soros and most of the Democrats. :)

Income and net worth are different things though I would expect the majority are both.

Let's not pretend that left-wing hate for anyone who earns more money then they do is exclusive to 1% of people. The hate is directed at "the rich" in general which seems to consist of anyone who employs or supervises anyone in the work place. This isn't defined of course because saying "We are the 60%!" has less of an impact, since you can't imply that your views make up a sheer majority of the population and are therefore validated.

>>5 Obama only has a net worth around 1.3 million

mitt romney however,-> over 200 million

>Obama only has a net worth around 1.3 million
>Obama 1.3 million
>1.3 million

And your point.

>Let's not pretend that left-wing hate for anyone who earns more money

They don't hate money. They hate anything that they can not control.

>>10
Actually, I think they do hate money when they talk about how evil it is and its inherent nature of causing greed, which is laughably insane. Makes you want to carry around print outs of a certain Atlas Shrugged speech.

>>11
>conservatard
>Atlas Shrugged
>using fiction to back up your ideology

No wonder you're so deluded.

lolا

اللهم     ارحم قاهر الفرس ومذل  اليهود ومدمر  الصليب قائد الامة الشهيد الرمز    صدام حسين رحمه الله وتقبله  في عليين  واللهم اجمع كل من يحب صدام معه  في   جنات الخلد وكل من يكرهه مع  المجرم  بوش الصغير والطاغية الهالك  الخميني   والسكسثاني الاطرم ونصر ابليس   ومقتدى القذر والحقير بلير ياربي  انك على  كل  شئ قدير واللهم انصر الجهاد   والمجاهدين في العراق وفلسطين  وافغانستان   والشيشان والصومال وكل مكان   ياربي . ls

████████████
___★__★__★____
 ████████████

*sigh*
Can I just get a real answer please?
Sheesh! You'd think this was /lounge/!

>>11
That's the excuse liberals make. It's a political game. They don't have any reason why they would actually want to do anything about poverty. If poverty went away, they would lose an important political demographic that votes for them.

In order for them to "fix" poverty, they need to control America's wealth though taxes or other means like socialism. Then they can use this wealth to buy political capital in the form of earmarks and such. The taxpayers get stuck with a lot of debts. Their political allies get a steady stream of the taxpayers money. The poor stays poor.

Liberals don't hate money. They love spending other people's money. Money is only evil if they don't control it or don't get a piece of it.

They do the same scam with racism.

>>12
Wow. It's like you immediately attacked him for no other reason than you thought he might not be a libtard without even making a point yourself or a real attempt at criticism.  

Remind us again why libfags have a rep as intolerant raging faggots? :)

>>18

>attacked him for no other reason
>without even making a point yourself or a real attempt at criticism

That sure would be some impressive hypocrisy. Troll harder faggot.

>>12
>>using fiction to back up your ideology
So what you're saying is that nothing written in a work of fiction can have any relevance or wisdom applicable in the real world? If not, would you care to rebuke said speech with reason and logic? Assuming you've read the book.

>>17
If poverty went away, they would lose an important political demographic that votes for them.
Apparently, in your world, the working class doesn't exist.

>>20

So what you're saying is that nothing written in a work of fiction can have any relevance or wisdom applicable in the real world?
Bahahahaha! Nice strawman. That's not anything close to what I said. It's just laughable to use a quote from a novel to try to win an argument. And no I won't "rebuke" it because you haven't done anything to earn that much effort or time from me. It would be like a liberal telling you "I'm right because here's a speech from someone in Grapes of Wrath. Now refute it or I win!"

>>22
>It's just laughable to use a quote from a novel to try to win an argument.
I wasn't aware this was about "winning" but okay. So will you at least back up with logic why you think quoting a speech from a novel that adequately responds to a common logical fallacy is wrong? Because so far the only reason you've given is "it's fiction."

>>1
We need a diagram of either the cumulative distribution function (CDF) or the probability distribution function (PDF), for the incomes of citizens of a particular domestic economy. The former is preferable. An accurate such for net worths of every individual may not even be sufficiently documented, due to privacy concerns.

So, you're basically asking what the 99th percentile for income is. The Internal Revenue Service would have this the information.

What would be also interesting to know is the CDF for disposable income, that is income after taxes. We would be able to quickly identify the difference of income and disposable income, along all tax brackets. It's a known fact that, many people in each tax bracket pay zero taxes on their taxable income because of tax deductibility.

Another thing of interest is human income equivalent to registered corporations, since they're legal persons. Undoubtedly a corporation's revenues and expenditures are usually much higher than any individual's, but of corporate revenue or corporate profit (corporate revenue subtract corporate expenditure), which one corresponds to human income? (Asked since human entities and corporate entities sustain "life" under slightly different functional principles. Does net worth of an individual who makes zero profit neither ever increase nor ever decrease?)

>>21
>Apparently, in your world, the working class doesn't exist.

And why would you make an obviously retarded assumption like that?

>>23

I wasn't aware this was about "winning"
Oh whatever. Why do you need to carry a copy around then? To prove your point, right? You can call it whatever you want, but that's still "winning" an argument on some level. Even if you're not arguing with anyone specific.

So will you at least back up with logic why you think quoting a speech from a novel that adequately responds to a common logical fallacy is wrong?
It's not necessarily wrong. It's mostly just lazy on your part. You don't need to give the matter any real thought or come up with any ideas of your own. You can just regurgitate someone else's idea. You don't even need to fully understand it. And when that's the argument you come up with in response to something, it's logical to assume that it's the best you've got.

Also, part of any speech's effectiveness is its context. Who is giving it and why? Even if it's relevant in today's society, at least some of its punch comes from fictional events in a fictional universe. And it should be obvious but examples from fiction don't prove anything. "Welfare is bad because Atlas Shrugged will come true," is a fucking retarded position. Not that this is your position, just an example. I could just as easily come up with a "liberal" example by the way.

To enter the top 1% in income you need $350000 a year.
To enter the top 1% in wealth you need $10000000.

To enter the top 1% in spirit you need to get a degree in petroleum engineering and put all your money on the stock market.

>I could just as easily come up with a "liberal" example by the way.

No thanks. We don't need to be reminded that liberals take retarded positions. This is normal for them.

>>24
You meant, "probability density function."
;)

>>29
More shit talking with nothing to back it up. That's what 4chan conservatrolls do best!

>>27
>To prove your point, right?
To educate.

>It's mostly just lazy on your part
What? If someone before me has responded to a logical fallacy in quite some detail, better than I could verbalize it then why should I not refer people to it? If I understand it and agree with it, why is it important that I express it only in my own words when my position is identical?

>And it should be obvious but examples from fiction don't prove anything.
But the speech doesn't refer to any characters or the fictional scenario, it is quite independent of the story, like someone explaining what a strawman argument is and why it is wrong to use it. At this point I question whether or not you even know what speech I am referring to and its contents.

>>31
I'm simply stating a painfully obvious truth. There is no need for the raging butthurt. It's cute the way you assume that if it's not a libfag, it must be a conservative.

>>32

If I understand it and agree with it, why is it important that I express it only in my own words when my position is identical?
Because if someone wants to discuss it with you or has questions, you should be able to give them a reply. If you're not able to express the idea on your own to begin with, then you probably wouldn't be very good at having a conversation about it. Although fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you actually can have a real conversation on the subject. In that case, no, I guess there is nothing wrong with referencing something like that. Although handing copies out would be a condescending, douchey move but you sound like you didn't mean that literally anyway.

But the speech doesn't refer to any characters or the fictional scenario, it is quite independent of the story, like someone explaining what a strawman argument is and why it is wrong to use it. At this point I question whether or not you even know what speech I am referring to and its contents.
I'm assuming you mean this:

http://www.working-minds.com/money.htm

I admit that I've never read Atlas Shrugged but I am familiar with its plot outline and thesis. And I did skim through that speech before my last reply. "...and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities," is an example of something fictional referenced in it. Even if he didn't mean that cities were literally becoming jungles, this references the decay happening in the novel and not reality. And even if it didn't explicitly mention fictional events, the subtext would still be there. For example, this line: "...which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them." It obviously applies to the real world but it's much more effective in the context of Atlas Shrugged where people actually do stop producing.

>>34
>Because if someone wants to discuss it with you or has questions, you should be able to give them a reply
Why says that I can't or won't!? Please don't try and construe intention to be that of handing out photocopies to just anyone who walks by without giving them any chance to respond, as I refuse to or are unable to.

>"...and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities," is an example of something fictional referenced in it.
But it doesn't detract at all from the validity of the argument itself, it's totally negligible.

>>35

But it doesn't detract at all from the validity of the argument itself, it's totally negligible.
I disagree. A big part of the argument is that collectivism just doesn't work. You really do need examples to back that position up. Not that there aren't plenty of examples in the real world, but all or almost all of the examples she decided to use in that speech were made up.

>A big part of the argument is that collectivism just doesn't work.
It's a speech about the value of money responding to the notion of money as morally evil. I really don't give a fuck what you think about collectivism.

the value of money
collectivism
If you think these two subjects are unrelated then you're very confused. They are completely entangled. I don't see how you could even think about one without considering the other. That's why money exists in the first place, because collectivism is so impractical.

>>26
And why would you make an obviously retarded assumption like that?
People don't vote for Democrats because of ``poverty''. A huge chunk of their voter base are working class.

>A huge chunk of their voter base are the welfare class.

fixed