Shared publicly  - 
65
23
Todd Sorensen's profile photoDeVan Hankerson's profile photoJavier Mendoza's profile photoStanley Ho's profile photo
52 comments
 
Far lower than that, I can tell you that much!
 
out of work hurt on job truck driver! 0.00 bucks!
 
33% Still in college Yey
 
Doing damn well thank you very much
 
I am the 61% :) I will go occupy something Thursday for like 10 minutes
 
I think the algorithm is on backward. $200,000,000 ranks in the 99.9%, whereas $2,000 is in the 1%. am I missing something? I thought the 1% were/are the moneyed elite...
 
Much, much higher on the scale than expected. I am nowhere near the 1% and as a single-salary household thought my income was rather modest. I now understand just how big the gap is. After playing with some numbers it looks like 80% are below what I consider middle class. That is a sad reflection on our present economy.
 
Didn't say gross income or AGI so, before taxes 60% ... After taxes 43%.
 
It's easy to forget that in many (if not most) of the rural parts of the U.S., the cost of living is very very low.  Like in most small country towns you can buy a house for $50,000 to $75,000 (often much less)!  That puts the monthly payment at $400-$500.  On the downside, longer commute.  I guess what I'm saying is that you don't need to make $50,000 a year to have a nice quality of life.  Note:  that if you make $15/hr. you are grossing about $600/week....
 
This really doesn't give you a good perspective on who is the 1%.  The problem is that the average person on this earth makes around $2,000 per year. SOOOO if you make 10x that then you are one of those evil 1% ers. 
 
It's not using the set of people on Earth, it's using the set of people in the US.
 
Next enter how much you actually pay in taxes.
 
Family? top 5%. ME? bottom 1%. I've spent more time in the last 2 years as an unpaid intern than I have actually pulling a paycheck. Job market sucks, but hey I'm getting experience right? (last 8+ months no paycheck)
 
I'm in the top 20% and would have no problem with a tax hike of about $700 per year.. Oh hey, that's how much the Bush cuts are for me. I, for one, don't have a problem with paying for what I get in the form of America.
 
+Mike DeSimone  if you really think that the $700 is better spent by the government there are forms you fill out to legally do that. If you need help I would be more than happy to assist you :) But I would rather you give that $700 to the charity of your  choice. 
 
If tax ia theft then see what happens when tax money no longer runs stop lights and city maint. Even the smallest things you would notice when it wasn't there and appreciate it
 
Lol +karla rave
No. The private sector works just fine and would work a hell of a lot better without government intervention and regulation.
 
No, it is not. Out here in the Real World, you are expected to pay for what you get. Taxes are one part of the democratically-created system we have to do that. It's right there in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.

Feel free to propose alternatives, but until one is accepted as a replacement for taxes, we'll stick with what we have. BTW, this is what is known as a "conservative" stance.
 
David, pardon me for not feeling particularly motivated to cover for you while you skip out on your fair share. E pluribus unum.
 
Alex, would this be the same private sector that needed to be bailed out, or some other one that never seems to show itself?
 
No, I have an anarchist stance. Just because I'm against the government providing it, doesn't mean I'm against it being provided at all. When there is demand, the market will provide it. You may be happy with the government and be hopelessly dependent on the state but it's actually not necessary in order to provide things like water and roads (which are actually provided by the private sector anyway).
 
Oh for fuck's sake, Mike. If a company fails, it fails. It shouldn't be bailed out. The US government needs bailing out which is why the debt ceiling is continuously raised.
 
Somewhat related: Did you know that Lego had 11 straight years running at a loss with its largest loss being $500 million in two years?
Like, do you really not understand how the market works. Lego wasn't bailed out. Lego adapted to suit a changing market. A bailed out business will continue to fail.
 
According to this you have to make $73,000 to be the 69%... 
 
+Alex Middleton Um, that's actually a fairly straightforward free-market anarchist stance.  (Being an agorist myself, I figure I should be able to recognize the basic philosophy when I see it.)
 
+Mike DeSimone  you are not covering for me, but merely following your own  rhetoric. Why do you need a law to tell you how much to contribute to the government? If you really think that the money is better spent in government hands by all means give that money away. Why don't you as they say put your money where your mouth is.. 
 
+David Williams Somewhere someone created the false declaration that government was an impediment to business and that taxes were somehow some type of waste that could better be going to the private sector.

It is all the more baffling considering that most conservatives understand the value of investment.  Investment is one of the most effective means of building and preserving wealth.

Taxes can be, and often are, an investment.

Rightfully or not, private sector organizations tend to focus on near term investments.  Government, tasked with the function of provided the greatest value to the common good, is often tasked with making investments for the long term that benefit society AND business as a whole.

A significant amount of business (from Boeing to Apple)  rode, to some extent, on the back of government spending.   Indeed, we are using the internet (a system created by government investment) to debate the topic - which I always find an amusing circumstance.

But the reality is that the infrastructure that provides power, technology, educated labor, and effective/efficient markets are all provided by government spending.  Free markets are by nature neither efficient nor effective.   That is not conjecture, go to any economy with no oversight or legal control and see how much graft, corruption and fraud creates an environment where costs are higher and business is more difficult (because of fear of all of the above).

Today we have thousands of firms reaping the benefits of that spend (Web 2.0, enterprise IT, consumer electronics), while at the same time people are ridiculously spreading the notion that taxes are always a drag on the economy.  We literally have new industries springing up because of that spend.

A great deal of that is simply residual from the space program (semiconductors, ICs, computer technology, new alloys) and the cold war.   I still wonder how many new technologies and industries we lost for the future by deciding NASA was "too expensive".

Taxes are a necessary part of providing the investment and technology for the future, as well as making sure the resources are available - to allow business to prosper in the future.   When you focus on removing as much as you can, you mortgage the future for a shortterm excess of cash.

Refer to the Laffer curve, it isn't the "Laffer line".   There is a point where collecting too little taxes hurts everyone, even the businesses that save in paying the taxes.   

Go check how many NYSE companies owe their existence to technologies and products derived from government spend or research.

If you want to debate whether government does a good job of spend?  Fair enough.  But the narrative focused on casting taxes as an evil, when they are the investment that becomes the lifeblood of a future competitive economy is foolish at best.
 
Think of this for a second Guys, here in Australia we have a Total of 206 taxes as of today but come the 1 july it will be 207, plus we have the highest wage tax
 
+Michael Kelly Boeing's a good example: where would they be without defense spending? This discussion for me is filed under #onlyinAmerica...
 
Do they want gross household income or adjusted gross income?  Do they want only taxable income?  I'm with +Michael Thomas.  87% with eyes on the 1% prize.  ;)
 
Every year, when school lets out for summer, none of my kids have any trouble finding jobs.  And neither do the children of our friends in lots of other states, save one family who lives WAY out in the sticks.  But, they don't have any delusions of starting out at six-figures, either.  They just put in a good day's work and feel good about paying their way as best they can; then, go back to school in the fall and TCB, there.
 
What Gross Income???  Some of use had gross income and now we have Negative Gross income.. i know i am one of the Negative cash flow People....right at the moment they should show it going the other way.!  right????
 
huh? how can you have negative gross income?? cost of looking for a job??
 
+Josh Woodcock I think it is called credit card debt.  Likely needing to use the plastic in addition to any unemployment benefits.
 
Wealth is not just what you make, but how you live. I prefer well being as the definition of wealth.  In my experience money does help. 
 
Easy Negative income =0.00 dollars you have bill's !
 
Ah. I guess I thought negative gross income meant revenue ($0) - variable costs. I guess personal income accounting is different? I know it's theoretical but economically you should shutdown and stop doing anything. That way you can eliminate variable costs and make at least $0 gross income. ;-). 
 
Yes, I meant post hoc in my previous comment.
Add a comment...