Facebook & Twitter

To follow BoreMe on Facebook, click 'Like'

To follow BoreMe on Twitter, click 'twitter'

Follow BoreMe on Twitter
Tags

Ads, Products & BusinessCountries & ContinentsEconomyHomepage: Politics & SocietyOccupy Wall StreetPolitics & SocietyProtestTaxesTravel, Transport & PlacesUSAWealthyNorth AmericaPolitics

Know something about this post? Email us

Report fault

<< Back to listing

Is it really 99% vs 1% - The data behind OccupyIs it really 99% vs 1% - The data behind Occupy

(5:42) It has been the rallying cry of the Occupy movement - but is the US really split 99% vs 1%? This animation explains what the key data says about the state of America.

Add your comment

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


Guest: bradikal (371 days ago)
Fox News had one of their meat puppets commenting how unfair it was to attack the 1%,(those making $400,000 and up) when she knew full well that the expression "1%" is just a convenient name given to the mega rich that pay far less than their share- much closer to the .01% who are the real problem.

cengland0 cengland0 (371 days ago)
I'm still concerned how people relate the percentage of taxes paid by the 1% as paying fewer taxes. This is not true. It would be like saying that if I bought a Honda Accord, it is 90% of my income but only .0001% of the income of a billionaire and claiming that is not fair. Those billionaires that pay 18% taxes versus the 99% that pay 25% are still paying a higher dollar amount in their taxes. Additionally, the tax table does not have a dip on the percentage paid when your income gets higher. In fact, it's the opposite. For income At least $100,000 but not over $174,400 = 25%. Over $174,400 but not over $379,150 = 33%. Over $379,150 = 35%. If they are paying less, they have some massive tax deductions which probably translates to losses.
    
WalterEgo WalterEgo (370 days ago)
The reason why taxes should be considered as a percentage rather than the total sum, is that for every $1 a business makes, a proportion of that should be paid to 'society' for assisting the business in making that $1. That proportion is tax. The 'assistance' is what governments do. From a UK point of view - education, health, law and order, defence of the realm, infrastructure etc. This is not to say governments spend tax money well, that's a totally different argument. This is about justly rewarding everyone who helped in making that $1 - not just top management at the expense of everyone else. It is important to recognise that the taxpayer pays for so much that is essential for businesses to succeed.

Guest: Kerry (370 days ago)
The reason the rich,especially the very rich, are on a lower tax bracket is simple,most of their income is from sources other than normal income tax.They get taxed on investments and capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate and there is a reason for that,it is so people,not just the mega-rich,invest in companies stock etc. to provide for expansion etc. which in turn provides jobs.So what do you want to do,tax capital gains at a higher rate and dissuade people from buying stocks and other investments that increase jobs?The rich are smarter with the money they have and can afford to be...it's just the way it is.
    
MissAlanius MissAlanius (370 days ago)
Latest comment: Problem is, the numbers don't support what you're saying. In 2010, GE made $14.2 billion, paid no taxes, created no jobs, and received $3.2 billion from the government (taxpayer) in tax credits! And GE is not unique. I don't get why, unless you're in the 0.01%, you'd be happy with this.

Guest: iknowlessthanyoudo (371 days ago)
A large portion of the 3.3 million millionaires who are not in the 0.01% watch only Fox news, are tea party or libertarian radicals and delude themselves into believing they are in the same league as the 0.01%.
Crowd Ignite  (opens in new window)
Related Posts