We are the 99%

• Dempsie wrote on 2011-10-06 03:56

  Quote from Kazuni;609528:

  I'm currently in the 99%. My parents went to the best universities in China, but they're making $12/hour here in Canada because they wanted me to have a good education and be away from all the problems that are coming up in China.
  My dad does stocks to try and get extra income to boost up savings for my university fund, but the stock market hasn't been friendly lately. Aka, if I get into ivy league, I need to pay for it myself by getting part time jobs and loans, or pulling a miracle and getting a huge scholarship.
  
  I'm absolutely intending to get to the 1%. And yes, I will donate to charities (not charities like the red cross though), but I will not be supporting things like the ideas on this site that come up every single day. If I'm part of the 1%, I would have clawed my way up like any other person who can get there and stay there with their own ability. Yes, I was lucky to be born in an educated family, which wasn't too well off but was living well, and have the learning capacity I have, but I work for everything else.
  
  Plus, if I take an expensive undergraduate program then law school, then take even more time to get my PhD, it would be extremely unfair for me to get paid the same amount as the "most important part" of our society. Yes, they are the building blocks of our world, but did they spend 8~12 years on university like I'm going to? Are most of them even capable of doing that, even if they had the money and opportunity? No, I don't think so.

  
  
  I understand your point, it is fair to say that you should be paid more for specific jobs. I was referring to the fact a lot of these people live at the poverty line, and whether or not they are capable of pursuing other jobs, no one in this world should go without. I mentioned the fact they help this society turn, because they should at least be paid enough to survive in what they are helping function; albeit, they shouldn't go around with tons of money like salaries from other careers garner.
  
  
  Although, the website is not 'attacking' the people who worked their way up in the world. On the contrary, they are against the monolithic corporations whose practices and weight they hold is overpowering to the point that they will always be the 1% and everyone else will tend to stay the 99%. I could go into a huge analysis of the point of the movement not being what most people perceive it to be, but everyone has their own overall opinion of the motives.
  
  Also, to say that even given the opportunity and money that most are not capable of achieving such is somewhat ignorant. I maintain a high GPA in college and am easily on the path to gaining admissions to pharmacy school; although, I don't feel as though that is where I should be. I would be completely content with working a job that just got me by, and to say that if I did work a job like that automatically qualifies me as incapable of achieving such aspirations as college and whatnot is rather one minded. There are a lot of variables to account for as to why someone isn't in college, why they can't go to college, or why they don't want to go to college.
• Kazuni wrote on 2011-10-06 04:03
  I didn't mean the capability to go to college. I meant the capability to go to a top school in either the states or Europe, doing extremely well in that top school, and coming out as one of the 1%. You don't get to be part of the 1% if you just go to an average college/university and get "good" marks. That'll get you by in life, that'll make you very comfortable, but that doesn't make you part of the 1%, and the 1% is what I'm talking about.
  
  Also, if people living in poverty were given enough for them to live somewhat comfortably, why would the people who are less proficient in school bother trying then? They can get by with giving nearly nothing and receiving everything they need to survive. Eventually, the world would be divided into people who work for a higher standard of living, and the people who are essentially living in their shadow and eating off the plates the 1% has bought.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2011-10-06 04:24

  Quote from Kazuni;609552:

  
  Also, if people living in poverty were given enough for them to live somewhat comfortably, why would the people who are less proficient in school bother trying then? They can get by with giving nearly nothing and receiving everything they need to survive. Eventually, the world would be divided into people who work for a higher standard of living, and the people who are essentially living in their shadow and eating off the plates the 1% has bought.

  
  
  This.
  
  If everyone is living comfortably, there won't be much motivation for some of them to invest in new business/companies/inventions to move further. If everyone is living comfortably, it means everyone has money, which would mean inflation is pretty high. Then, it will fall back to the way it is now.
• Dempsie wrote on 2011-10-06 04:47

  Quote from Kazuni;609552:

  I didn't mean the capability to go to college. I meant the capability to go to a top school in either the states or Europe, doing extremely well in that top school, and coming out as one of the 1%. You don't get to be part of the 1% if you just go to an average college/university and get "good" marks. That'll get you by in life, that'll make you very comfortable, but that doesn't make you part of the 1%, and the 1% is what I'm talking about.
  
  Also, if people living in poverty were given enough for them to live somewhat comfortably, why would the people who are less proficient in school bother trying then? They can get by with giving nearly nothing and receiving everything they need to survive. Eventually, the world would be divided into people who work for a higher standard of living, and the people who are essentially living in their shadow and eating off the plates the 1% has bought.

  
  
  Oh, misunderstanding on my part. Apologies.
  
  
  Not necessarily, I don't think it would be as cut and dry as those who want to earn high salaries and those who are ambivalent over it. Also, I don't mean comfortably, but far from it. I'm just saying anyone who works deserves to at least have the absolute bare minimums required to continue living and not die of starvation, freezing to death, etc. I think everyone can agree no one deserves to suffer like that just cause there job doesn't cover all of there bills, so they have to go without food, running water, heat, etc. I'm not saying, "Hey, why try I can get all the food, water, satellite television, and shelter I need without working, why work?" There would still be incentive to stay in school and such, like not being destitute and just above the poverty line. So, essentially just above poverty would be the new 'poverty' in perspective, but it wouldn't be as bad cause you could still continue life and not be at the risk of dying by one of the aforementioned reasons.
  
  Also, people get by every day doing nearly nothing and receiving everything they need, it's called jail, some people commit crimes for the sole reason to be sent there so they can have food and a place to sleep.
  
  
  

  Quote from EndlessDreams;609565:

  This.
  
  If everyone is living comfortably, there won't be much motivation for some of them to invest in new business/companies/inventions to move further. If everyone is living comfortably, it means everyone has money, which would mean inflation is pretty high. Then, it will fall back to the way it is now.

  
  
  As I just said, I didn't mean comfortably. Just above the poverty line is anything but comfortable, so not many people would strive to attain such. I was just referring to the fact no one should have to go without (food, shelter, etc.), like those tend to do under the poverty line, so just above not having it is nearly not having it, but still being able to survive. It wouldn't affect innovation or progression; there will always be those people who have passion for such subjects and things without the allure of money being involved. Although, I understand your point, it might have some effect, but I don't think it would be as drastic as it would seem is all.
• Zid wrote on 2011-10-06 06:35
  Seems like the greatest thing to do is to fight back against the concept of "survival of the fittest", yes?
  
  If I die because of poverty, so be it. Even if it's unfair.
• Kazuni wrote on 2011-10-06 06:55
  @Dempsie
  
  So, what you're saying is, the people who worked for what they have should have to pay for those who didn't (whether because they couldn't or wouldn't) through tax dollars? I'd rather that money go to the school board, considering all the problems with education right now (class sizes, textbooks, desks).
  
  If not, who would pay for their food, shelter, clothing, etc? Would there be programs to help them actually get a job, or would they be freeloading off the government? Even if there were such programs in an ideal world, there are still going to be people who want to freeload, there are going to be people who don't want to try to give back as much as they get, and there are going to be people who won't want to pay for those people's meals.
  
  *edit
  Also, a large portion of homelessness stems from drug abuse, and continues even after they lose their job and home. Would the average family be paying for a homeless man's drugs through their taxes?
• Taycat wrote on 2011-10-06 06:56
  I think I'm the 99%. My dad is the only one that can work in this house. He used to get paid 1k or so every other week. Now he only gets around 700 or so. We have to choose between food or bills. We usually choose bills. Rarely do we choose food now. I am lucky if I can eat dinner or breakfast. I only get lunch because I go to school. So am I?
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2011-10-06 07:46

  Quote from Kazuni;609703:

  
  Also, a large portion of homelessness stems from drug abuse, and continues even after they lose their job and home. Would the average family be paying for a homeless man's drugs through their taxes?

  
  
  Actually we do. In the form of Medicaid.
  
  At least part of their pain medicine abuse.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2011-10-06 07:52
  The problem with the 1% isn't that they're not doing the rest of society justice, but that a fraction of that 1% has POWER, and they abuse it to avoid their responsibilities.
  
  To say people in their 1% don't deserve it would be outright nonsense. There are many cases when they're handed that wealth over, but almost every one of these 1%'ers worked their asses off to get in to that position, and they continue to work their asses off to stay in that position.
  
  I'm just going to drop an example here.
  
  My father is a member of the 1%.
  
  He pays about 40% of his annual income. This tax alone, my friends, is about 400% of your annual income.
  
  He's doing a damn fine job as a member of society. He was brought up as a poverty stricken boy his entire life. He has never tasted meat until college. After graduation he couldn't go on to his masters because his parents didn't have enough money to survive, so he got a job a samsung.
  
  13 years later he made just enough to make sure his family didn't starve, and he came to America to finish his masters. We lived in awful conditions, and our "once a week dining out" family moment was usually to burger king. Being paid purely on scholarships alone, we managed to live in America for 5 years before he finished his education and got a job.
  
  For his entire life he endured hardships, studied nonstop, worked overtime, and eventually in his 40's he got his phd and his dream job.
  
  He has a 6 figure salary, but half of it goes to his parents, my mom's parents, his sister who cannot work due to her disability (with the Korean government giving no benefits) and his brother whose business isn't sufficient enough to fully support his family.
  
  He is taxed 40%. To say 40% is only 20% more than the average American would be a straight out lie. Given my 20% is actually only about 2% of his paycheck, his contributions as far as money goes is actually more than 20 average working Americans.
  
  He is left with nearly nothing at the end of it all. Once a year he helps himself to "an expensive toy" of his hobbies, such as a camera or a telescope to take wonderful pictures of the stars.
  
  He lost his job 4 years ago after he "completed" his field of study and the board recognized that there was nothing more he could possibly research in his field. He has been working here and there for different companies, but the conditions have never been good. Our family was split for a while because his job would be located in places we weren't going to live at (korea, california, etc) and he wanted us to finish our school without transferring.
  
  Think about it. How does one get into the 1%?
  
  What do you imagine when someone says 1% of the population holds all the world's wealth? A bunch of evil doers who sit at the top raking in money from everyone else? 1% of 7 billion is 70 million. To assume that 70 million people in this world are money grubbing politicians and oil company CEO's would be just ignorant.
  
  When you do the math, the tax money that comes out of 1% is actually equivalent to the tax money that comes out of the 99%. Will you still say thats "unfair"?
• Kazuni wrote on 2011-10-06 07:55

  Quote from EndlessDreams;609750:

  Actually we do. In the form of Medicaid.
  
  At least part of their pain medicine abuse.

  
  
  It would be way more if every homeless man was given somewhere to live and three meals a day.
  
  And I don't actually know what Medicaid is. Is that an American thing? Canadians just pay everyone's health bill through taxes.
• Hoihoihoi wrote on 2011-10-06 08:00
  /on Imgur too much
  
  MFW another 99% post
  
  
  

  Quote from TA;609755:

  
  He pays about 40% of his annual income. This tax alone, my friends, is about 400% of your annual income.
  
  

  
  
  My annual income is 0. 0x4=0?!?!?!
• Cucurbita wrote on 2011-10-06 08:01

  Quote from Kazuni;609756:

  It would be way more if every homeless man was given somewhere to live and three meals a day.
  
  And I don't actually know what Medicaid is. Is that an American thing? Canadians just pay everyone's health bill through taxes.

  
  
  Agreed.
  
  Feeding them 3 times a day and giving them a nice place to stay? Why the hell don't I just go become homeless right now?
  
  Do the math. Street beggars make more money than you yearly. Plus they dont have to pay taxes. Most chose that lifestyle because its easier and more convenient.
  
  Homeless support is nice, but only if it encourages them to get their asses back up on their feet. But I've known friends who became homeless out of their own control. Even I almost faced that path. That said, all they need is a place to re cooperate, a shower and a razor so they can go get a legit job interview.
  
  And Medicaid is just part of where our taxes here in America goes so that poor people and seniors who can't afford medical care can get the bare minimum needed to not die a horrible and painfully slow sickening death.
  
  People whine about giving to it but turns out you get almost all of it back while doing taxes at the beginning of each year, and the only people who actually pay for medicaid are people whose income is... in the...
  
  well...
  
  1%.
• Dempsie wrote on 2011-10-06 08:12

  Quote from Kazuni;609756:

  It would be way more if every homeless man was given somewhere to live and three meals a day.

  
  
  I don't quite understand why you keep assuming that is what I meant in my post, especially after I made a point to address it multiple times...
• Kazuni wrote on 2011-10-06 08:15

  Quote from Dempsie;609774:

  I don't quite understand why you keep assuming that is what I meant in my post, especially after I made a point to address it multiple times...

  
  
  If people already pay for Medicaid or something else now, giving more people shelter/food, no matter how basic, is going to either add to taxes, or take away from other things.
• Dempsie wrote on 2011-10-06 08:21

  Quote from Kazuni;609779:

  If people already pay for Medicaid or something else now, giving more people shelter/food, no matter how basic, is going to either add to taxes, or take away from other things.

  
  
  

  Quote from Dempsie;609774:

  I don't quite understand why you keep assuming that is what I meant in my post, especially after I made a point to address it multiple times...

  
  
  .