Revisitng the 99%

Whilst this may be a bit like a dog going back to it’s vomit, or picking a scab – I’m afraid on the day when the big news seems to be the rapid approach of the collapse of the euro I’m going to sort of revisit the whole “occupy where ever you feel like” movement.

Firstly because The Nameless Libertarian has said what I was trying to say the other day far better than I did, especially with this bit:

However, there is a second reason why I think these protests may be deriving such scorn from many people. It is the arrogance of those involved to claim that they speak on behalf of the 99%. Put simply, you don’t. You don’t speak on behalf of me, and I am neither a banker nor a politician – ergo, I am one of the supposed 99% you claim to represent. And I would guess that you don’t speak for at least 85% of those including in your spurious figure of 99%. From what I can gather, the vast majority of people don’t want radical change; they want to be allowed to get on with their lives – preferably with the bills (tax ‘n’ all) being considerably lower. They don’t want to take to the streets to occupy financial districts, and even if they did then they couldn’t as they have jobs to go to and families to provide for. They just want life to a be a bit easier. And to have urban campers claiming their voice to back up a shambolic act of civil disobedience is bound to stick in their throats a bit.

The other reason I thought I’d go back to it is that a friend of mine did a bit of number crunching on the US version of things:

“Here are some numbers for you: 1% of the US population is about 3 million people. Roughly 2 million will be of working age. 1.4 million of those actually earn an income (that they reported to the IRS). In the top 1%, each of those made upwards of $380,000 in 2009. That’s 24% of the total income. They control about 43% of the wealth, and they pay about 38% of the taxes. The top 2% of earners (back to 3 million people, roughly 1% of total US population including kids and grandmas) made upwards of $225,000. If you made less than that, you are the 99%.”

Pretty scary huh? Unless you’re on over $225,000 you’ve in the 99%! Except well notice the other numbers in there:
that 1% controlling 43% of the wealth are paying 38% of the taxes – which is just 5% off being paying an equitable amount surely? Given another site apparently claims it’s 33% of the wealth they control and this is just for federal income tax. So it would seem to me that the 1% are probably paying their “share” So it seem it’s just that the idea of a smaller government spending less money so that the poorer elements (and everyone else) can pay less tax is just too strange a concept. So trying to take more money from people with the resources to avoid you doing that is obviously the only sensible alternative, followed by occupying random places when that doesn’t work how you hoped?

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.