Maher on the 0.1%

[eridani]

[rhett o rick]

1. k&r thanks for posting. nm

[hfojvt]

2. first it's the super rich, then it's the rich

which is it?

Maher himself has a net worth of perhaps $23 million and annual income over $1 million.

Now where did I put that stick?

[loudsue]

3. These days, that's "middle class" -- The class right below the super rich.

And the middle class is going away, because the uber rich are getting all the candy.

[hfojvt]

5. that's what Maher would like you to believe

that's why he talks about the 0.1% instead of the top 10%.

The top 0.1% gets 10% of the national income. The top 10% gets about 50%.

But yeah, sure, it's all the fault of the top 0.1% and somebody with $23 million in net worth is just "middle class". 40% of the national income is nothing at all.

[merrily]

7. Good points

"....the candy will rain down on the rest of us."


Sure, Bill is just a regular guy. Nonetheless, it's good someone with a microphone is spreading the message.

BTW, if you were able to find that his net worth--which, of course, would include the value of his home(s) is $23 million, I would guess it's a lot more. Also, he gave $1 million, after taxes, to the 2012 Obama campaign. Anything is possible, but I would be very surprised if he gave more than 1/25 of his entire assets, both liquid and not liquid, to a political campaign.

[hfojvt]

10. but he's spreading the wrong message

Focusing on the 0.1% is just a very good way for the bottom 80% to get screwed.

It allows politicians to promote "middle class" policies with most of the benefits going to the top 20%. And why not IF 99.5% of the top 20% is part of the "middle class"?

But then society just gets more and more unequal.

The top 20% and the top 10% are NOT part of the middle. They are part of the top.

[merrily]

11. I agree. But he is also spreading part of the correct message:

helping the rich is not going to rain candy down on anyone.

The major message is that the country is being run for the rich and doing that is not going to help the country as a whole. Those who populate leftist message boards--or any political message boards, for that matter--are familiar with that concept, whether we agree with it or not. A lot of America, however, is not familiar with it.

Once it penetrates everyone's consciousness, we can debate percentages.

BTW, many Americans self-define as middle class, but do a lot of them self define as being in the richest 10% of Americans?

I do agree with you on the larger issue. I posted here within the last couple of weeks that few mention fighting for poor people anymore, just fighting for the middle class. So, there is a lot of disinformation around. But, as between no celebrity mentioning the wealth issue on TV and Bill Maher not hitting the nail squarely on the head, I would rather it be mentioned.

[TBF]

19. The reason we focus on the top 1%

is that the money is there - in fact it's really in the top 1/10th of the top 1%. The people who are working hard and earning $100K a year have much more in common with someone earning $20K a year in America than they do with someone who has a net worth of 20 million. Splitting off those folks and calling them "rich" is really not helpful to them or the democratic party for that matter.

[hfojvt]

23. actually the money is NOT there

the top 0.1% only gets about 10% of the national income. The top 0.9% gets another 10%.

The REST of the top 10%? They get 30% of the national income.

They are getting a good slice, and taking a whole lot of the pie.

Helpful to the Democratic Party? Well, that depends. I think that the Democratic Party should say "we represent the bottom 80%".

Is that an untenable position? Why? The bottom 80% is a sizeable majority. Both parties should be chasing after that majority.

Now you might say that 99% is an even larger majority, but I say it is kinda hard to represent the bottom 99%.

Take the Bush tax cuts (please). It could easily be argued that "the Bush tax cuts are for the bottom 99%". In fact, that's what Bush and company DID argue. I, OTOH, argued that most of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich.

Well, if only the top 1% is rich, then I WAS WRONG. Because 73.9% of the Bush tax cuts went to the bottom 99%. Heck, over 60% of them (MOST) went to the bottom 95%.

Hurrah for the Bush tax cuts!!!

Let's not divide the bottom 95% by pointing out that only 36% of the Bush tax cuts went to the bottom 80% and that MOST of them (64%) went to the top 20%, and that further, a mere 7.4% of them went to the bottom 40%.

No, I guess I will get on board. The Bush tax cuts - a tax cut for the 99%, making America less unequal.

We already have a party that represents the top - it's called Republican. It would be nice if we had a party that represented the bottom.

Instead, like I have said before, and I quote "The Republican Party represents the top 5%, the Democratic Party represents the next 15% and neither of them represents the bottom 80%."

[brett_jv]

26. These #'s you're quoting aren't like those I've seen bandied about of late ...

Could swear I've seen stats like that the top 1% has like 30% or 40% of the wealth, or some such. Where do you see that the top 1% has only 20%?

And also, isn't that a bit more egregious than (to use your numbers) the top 1-10% getting 30%?

[hfojvt]

39. wealth vs. income

The top 1% has 40% of the wealth, but they only get 20% of the income. I consider income to be more relevant than wealth.

After all, we tax income and not wealth.

But what is better, having $1,000,000 in wealth or having a job that pays $400,000 a year?

I say the job is better. In ten years, you could easily have both - $1,000,000 in net worth AND a job making $400,000 a year. And you live well by spending $100,000 a year.

On the other hand, you can have wealth, like I once had 2 hectares in Wisconsin, that not only does NOT generate any income, but it actually costs money. You cannot spend that $100,000+ a year unless your wealth is making you some money - which, once again, gets back to income.

Sure, it is more egregious that 1% has 20% than that 9% has 30%

BUT

30% is still much greater than 20%.

AND

it does not really help the bottom 90% if the numbers go from 30-20 to 40-10, does it? My point is, the top 1% are not the only ones grabbing a big slice of the pie and leaving that much less for the rest of us.

[TBF]

29. You don't agree with my charts -

yet you have no cites of your own?

I do agree with your statement: "The Republican Party represents the top 5%, the Democratic Party represents the next 15% and neither of them represents the bottom 80%."

The problem is that the republicans have figured out how to talk to the bottom 80% (they talk about god & guns), while the democrats haven't. I do think that is a big issue as well.

[hfojvt]

40. I didn't disagree with your charts

but they did not show the division of the pie, all they showed was average income of various groups.

Average income does not tell you how the pie is divided up. Here is my own pie chart http://www.koch2congress.com/5.html

The red slice of the 1% is way too big and has grown tremendously since 1986, but anything that is not blue or light blue (and it should read 31.8% rather than 38.1% dadgummit) is part of the top 25% and THAT is, by far, most of the pie. 22% goes to the top 1% and 46% goes to the next 24%.

And 46% is much greater than 22%.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Good point. That's why he's talking about the "0.1%" as opposed to the 1%.

And as his wealth continues to grow, expect to see him excoriating the "0.01%".

[eridani]

14. Actually, I chose the title, not Maher. Should I change it? n/t

[Nye Bevan]

16. No, given that he is already in the 1%, it was probably appropriate for you to pick "0.1%" (nt)

[Bandit]

17. Have you ever heard him object to paying his fair share of taxes?

Or are you just jealous of his wealth? I think it is great that in America you can achieve wealth beyond anyone's dreams but I also believe that the more you have the more you need to give back to the society that raised you.

[hfojvt]

18. I have read about it, yes

so then why be jealous of the Koch billionaires? I have read that David gives HALF of his income to charity.

And that's why I think Maher is railing about the 0.1%, so that a 1%er like hizzoner won't be consider part of the problem and asked to pay more in taxes.

It's not about ME, no, it's about the 0.1%.

We all wanna be big rock stars, but that's not the measure of a man http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024848823

[DocMac]

22. If the Koch brothers

were to find out that they only had $23 million each, they would be on heavy anti-depressants and on suicide watch.

[hfojvt]

25. well no wonder Maher is jealous of them, then

but I can assure that if my brother and I, both of whom are named Koch, and thus are THE Koch brothers, were to find out that we had $23 million each. Heck, if we had $2.3 million each, we'd be dancing in the streets singing "we're in the money".

In fact, if I had a "mere" $230,000, I'd pick up the phone and happily say "I am not coming in to work today, consider this my two weeks notice."

In the words of Shakespeare "'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished for"

[DocMac]

28. I get what you are saying.

But, If Bill Mahre woke up with $27 billion, would he behave like the billionaire Kochs?

[zeemike]

30. The difference is that he earned it.

and most of the supper rich inherited it and turned it into more just by investing it and sitting on their ass providing nothing of any value.

And 23 million would not buy a yacht that the supper rich would be seen on.

[sulphurdunn]

41. Bill Maher's net worth

bears no necessary relationship to his statement. It's either true or it isn't.

[WillyT]

4. K & R !!!

[whathehell]

6. K&R -- One of his best n/t

[blue14u]

8. Excellent..

[undergroundpanther]

9. any power seeking bully

using money like a weapon. they need to have thier insulative bubbles,thier incessant whining sileced, thier ill gotten wealth and power and celebrity broken somehow. I am sick of the abuse these selfish pampered whiners do to people in this country.Beat the ogliarchy until it is crushed.

[bearssoapbox]

12. At least he's one of the growing number of rich, super rich, uber rich,

whatever you want to call them, that's speaking up about the inequality that exists between the .1, .2% or 10% and the rest of America and the world.

Those of us that are trying to live on less than the poverty level don't have quite the voice or can find the time in our daily scrounging of trying to exist, to be heard like the people with money tend to be heard and/or listened to.

With all the money being put into attacks on the poor by the right, a little balance is appreciated by some of us.

[eridani]

15. Bill Gates Senior tried to get a high earners tax passed in WA State

The more likely you were to benefit from it, the less likely you were to vote for it. I think they just should have tried to sell a progressive tax in general--low income people still wouldn't have paid anything. The opposition successfully used the argument that the evil gummint was just trying to get its nose under the tent, and "rich" would quickly be redefined to mean everyone.

[Martin Eden]

21. Good one, Bill! n/t

[tclambert]

24. Oh, I get it now. Trickle down goes from the super-rich all the way down to the rich.

But NO FARTHER!

[clarice]

27. Bill Maher's net worth.....

[link:http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/richest-comedians/bill-maher-net-worth/|

[wyldwolf]

31. So?

[clarice]

32. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black...IMHO. nt

He IS the 1%.

[wyldwolf]

33. Elizabeth Warren’s net worth as of the end of 2011 was as high as $14.5 million

I guess she should shut up, too.

[clarice]

34. So you don't see ANY irony ??? nt

[wyldwolf]

35. I wouldn't call it irony. But at the same time, no one in yours and my economic station...

... will ever be given the bullhorn to speak of these things like Mahar and Warren can.

FDR was filthy rich.

The Kennedy's were.

It takes money to be influential unless you can somehow lead an armed revolt - not very likely.

[clarice]

36. LOL.....He could always "trickle" a little of that 23 Mil my way !!! nt

[wyldwolf]

37. but then EVERYONE would ask!

I wonder how much they donate to liberal causes and charities? That would mean a lot in my book. But then again, the way they're using their influence goes a long way to making things better.

[clarice]

38. I wonder the same thing..

But let's use Hollywood as an example. What if ten super rich stars donated 1 million dollars
to a special fund. How many health insurance premiums could be paid for how many families
with $10,000,000 dollars ? Now THAT'S helping.

[defacto7]

42. adding a kick