No one becomes one of the 1%

how much damage the ownership society does to the economy and the nation. Thankfully most of them are republicans.

Some nice person might win the lottery.

But probably true 99% of the time.

*Nice lottery winners not included.

$587.5 million, Powerball, won Nov. 28, 2012, by two tickets, sold in Missouri and Arizona. Cash (2)
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Hillary+Clinton+and+the+Military+Industrial+Complex&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=how+much+money+did+biggest+lottery+winner+get%3F


the top 1 percent, household income is at least $521,411.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Hillary+Clinton+and+the+Military+Industrial+Complex&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=how+much+money+to+be+in+the+1+percent

That's income, not net asset value. The term top 1% is used to describe asset value, not income. The value of what you own.

One can measure "The 1%" either way, but in this case (and in keeping with your video) you
are technically correct.

Unluckiest Couple Celebrates $52 Million Lottery Win, Then Weeps
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/couple-celebrates-52-million-lottery-win-then-weeps_5686a127e4b06fa688826fec?cps=gravity_2425_-7263245814073882212

I never did hear from you where you think -- based on net worth -- how much someone
needs to have to qualify as part of "The 1%".

Sadly in this case it appears this couple is being cheated out of their winnings, but still ...

if you made that every year, I would agree.

From where I stand they have done a lot of life building for many many people their employees included.

I agree that many one Percenter's get there on the backs of others but it is not absolute by any means. These days because of the internet there are people becoming 1% ers based on good ideas and the ability to get those ideas developed into actual products for consumers much easier than ever before.

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-really-is-the-best-tech-company-to-work-for-2011-6

And still doesn't dispute the fact that google has the highest pay of all the tech giants.

So does extreme poverty.

But it's not either/or.

Truth be told, I wouldn't piss on most affluent people if their faces were on fire and I AM MYSELF a somewhat affluent asshole who is creating this post on a table my wife and I bought at the East Palo Alto Ikea.

My great grandfather lived in San Francisco, building a big house there, before the Great Earthquake. The house still stands, now owned as an investment property, subdivided, each of it's rooms now housing entire families. Nobody among my great grandfather's descendants could afford to purchase the home now. We probably couldn't purchase the home if we pooled all our resources. The rent on my grandmother's childhood bedroom is greater than any of our mortgage payments, and some of us live in big houses. Just not in San Francisco.

A few years ago I was chatting with one of the tenants of my great grandfather's house who couldn't believe the entire home once housed a small family; mom, dad, kids, and an Irish cook/houskeeper Sundays her own who had her very own big bedroom and bath, which is now the most expensive "suite" in the house. I like to think there's some pompous tech executive living in that room, thinking he's hot stuff. The room of a maid. And she probably had a much more pleasant life than a guy attached 24/7 to a smartphone shock collar.



My great grandfather was a big dreamer who, in the 1920's, bet everything including that house on aeronautics, motion pictures, and mass market dairy products. Unfortunately he bet on the wrong horses. To a sickening extent the game was rigged in favor of bigger players.

Still is.

That is nonsense.

Higher incomes should be taxed more but the idea that peoples lives are being destroyed because others are making better wages is just ridiculous.

Money will move to the more desirable places you cant avoid that short of communism.

Money is a fucking strange cult.

Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.

Honore de Balzac


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/honoredeba197735.html#2wzK1gxKP5bmRPAV.99

Just asking. I think your broad brush is a tad indiscriminate.

Who hasn't he is easier.

The adults who have read her books are already formed and if they were drooling idiots after reading them they were probably the same before. Children though may take years to exhibit symptoms of the permanent damage they may have suffered.








Just joshing.

I'm sure that they have embarrassed a bunch of folks, over the course of their careers; but, I suspect most have gotten over it.

The lives that Lebron James has destroyed. Or Jeff Gordon. Or the guy who invented Twitter. Or the guy who invented YouTube.

In which the individual themselves did not do the deed, but those that finance and support the individual. Nevertheless, the wealth is subsidized through harm of other human beings.

The system is not a simple one degree of seperation.

Authors, actors, musicians?

Even though the artist does not do harm, the industries funding the artist do.

Dirty money.

Or a millionaire.

The number is stated at 521,000/year, so If you have been there for more than a couple years, you should be a millionaire.

Edit- if we are talking about a 1%er considering wealth, I am fairly confident the number is well over 1 million.

My answer is yes, the wealthiest 1% live off the suffering of others.

That does not make one life destroying.

I mean c'mon....

The greatest crime is us letting them keep it all without paying their fair share in taxes.

We protect them with our tax dollars.

Occupy had it right and it bears repeating often:

"We are not against the 1%, we are against policies that benefit the 1% at the expense of the 99%"

As long as we keep that focus we won't go terribly off track as the OP has done.

There are 8 episodes

&list=PLVZjwSt4FoCHM0aXrrn6GA8AxItq5dxFO

So what is an acceptable maximum income and savings amount?

is a euphemism for the word, 'capitalism', and a lot of people just don't realize it, in my opinion. The foundational premise for capitalist ideology, is that the earth's resources belong to the elite class, which is what enables "the 1%" to steal and horde them for their own enrichment.

There are two sources of energy for 'wealth'. They are the earth's resources and the human labor that extracts and processes the raw materials into usable energy. There are no others, and they both, rightfully, belong to everyone. We need a completely different outlook on the purpose and goal of economic activity, but the effects of a lifetime of exposure to the reinforcing propaganda, will be very difficult to reverse.

Happy new year to you.

I'm healthy and comfortable, so the new year is starting off well. I hope the same for you.

Used to own a marina and several nice, 200 a month lot rent mobile home parks worth around 10 million at one time which would have put us in the 1%. We paid our workers around $20 an hour. This is in tennessee, where comparable wages are in the $15 an hour range. Please tell me whose lives my family ruined.

We're talking about a wasteful and unjust economic system here, that enriches the few, at the expense of the many. No one holds you and your family, responsible. We are all captive to it, and we must do what we have to, in order to make a living. The system now poses a threat to our civilization, however, and it is past the time for revolutionary change.

Were 1%ers. They destroyed no ones life.

The path to fair wages does not begin with superficial and hyperbolic generalizations. The only place that gets you is not being taken seriously.

A rich person's hurt feelings are not a priority, when compared to the dire implications of continuing down our current economic path. A system that enables the accumulation of 'wealth' by a minority, at the expense of a vast majority, is, at its roots, illogical, unstable and unjust. Its wasteful nature poses a serious threat to the security of our civilization, and it absolutely must be abandoned, as soon as possible.

This one does. The OP made an absolute pronouncement, and it is contradicted by this person's experience.

Never mind they destroyed Republicans night after night

Or aren't profiting from expanding the use and consumption of fossil fuels. They can be as 1% as they like in my book.

Just don't make things worse for everyone else while making your small space better, is that too much too ask?

Hell yes it is!

So that as a criteria is silly.

The majority of citizens have no savings of any substance.

Most of the savings go to the financial industry, in the form of fees, further enriching corporate executives and shareholder, at the expense of the working class. A lot of working 'investors' are in for a big surprise, when it's time to retire.

I especially like the "Personalization is a diversion" post. I am amazed I have not had exposure (that I recall) to your posts sometime in the last 10 years.

Thank you for your great contributions and I will be watching for your screenname in the future.

incredible some of the responses in this thread. Really incredible.

Most of the savings do not go to the financial industry in the form of fees. Ridiculous. Fees are a tiny percentage of the value. 401ks are transparent and anyone can see the value online 24/7. They can also move their money to conservative investments when they wish. No one will be surprised "when its time to retire".

By all means, demonstrate this 'transparency', so everyone can see the 'ridiculous falsehood' of my claim.

you are beyond any help. Fortunately everyone else who has one knows.

It isn't possible.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/06/05/hidden-401k-fees-retirement-plan-ripoff/

Even using the extreme example the link made up, only a tiny amount of the total savings are going to fees. Maybe math is not your strong point, I don't know.

As I said before if you don't like your 401k to be in stocks move the money to a conservative investment such as money markets. Then thee are no "hidden fees".

If they invest in a 401(k), they would be wise to seek out more information on this issue.

I read the article. Anyone other than a RW apologist would understand the article's message that the average 401K holder is being ripped off.

I keep a careful eye on my 401k and what it's doing, including fees. The capital gains exceeded the principle for thfirst time last year. It's working for me.

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/10/wall-street-journal-wealth-inequality-is-your-own-dumb-fault/

Also, see Robert Reich' s film, Inequality for All.

Or keeping Republicans out of office or even about taking the idea of democracy itself, for all people, seriously.

Some want the government to represent the people, some corporations and some, both.

For the latter, we exist in the most honesty, the most reality, the most democracy, they cannot personally fund the blocking of.

Heck, thanks to them, corporations are now people. The most backwards, racist, misogynistic, republican, warmongering, climate denying people one could have the pleasure of assisting.

Considering our level of living compared to most of the world's population?

for everyone to enjoy a comfortable, secure existence, if we rely primarily on energy from the sun. No one needs any more than that. 'Happiness' is something people will have to find on their own.

Numbers of lives!

Our system is corrupt and sociopathic, the beneficiaries of that system are not inherently corrupted by the system. Hyperbolic statements don't advance the goals of ending the corruption.

But if you want to hang your hat on the OP... How many lives did Wayne Gretsky destroy

Comparing 2001 to 1901, it stated that 99% of millionaires in 1901 were self-made (i.e. did not inherit their wealth), whereas in 2001 it had flipped: 99% had inherited it.

Chance of achieving the american dream is only dependent upon ones ancestry.