If you are in the 1% you are nothing but an exploiter

[WDIM]

Last edited Mon Jul 13, 2015, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Living off the hard work of others. The succubus class that doesnt even think it should pay taxes or help its fellow humans with social programs.

The wealthy take and take and take while living lives of luxury consuming more wealth than most people see in ten life times. The aristocracy that believe life should be handed to them and have never worked a hard day in their life and we the workers just keeping giving it to them because they will crash the economy. They have exploited the people of this world long enough. They should get a job like the rest of us,

And for the people down on their luck we should all be working to raise up our fellow humans. When the lowest among us thrives we all thrive.

All cental and private banks all members of the exploiter class should have their assets seized and redistributed to all the people of the world. Turn their 20 bedroom mansions into homes for the homeless. Crash their phoney economy with a new one that benefits all and not just 1%.

Edit: Top 1% of wealth holders not income earners. If you make $400,000 in income but have debts for your house your car your credit card etc then you are not in the 1%.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Do you think only the 1% are exploiters? I see those who take and would like to take more off of

hard working people every day I get on the roads. When a panhandler tells you they are getting $200 a day off the streets they are exploiting working people. And you may not know it but Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and many more gives large donations to help those who are not as fortunate. I am a hard working person who collects used clothing, etc for those not as fortunate.

[WDIM]

10. no comparison

A panhandler taking $200 a day is nothing compared to a billionaire taking $10s of thousands a day right from the people who need it, like the panhandler. Nice republican talking point though.

Bill gates and buffet and soros and kochs and all those take way more then they give back. They have exploited and destroyed lives to be that rich dont delude yourself. Them giving back is like the queen saying let them eat cake.

[Thinkingabout]

18. No, this isn't a republican talking point, this is facts. To think otherwise would be deluding your

self. You have listed a few, how about thousands of pan handlers who thinks it is funny he is making $200 daily off of hard working people. The 1% does not need the other 99%, if they never made another dollar in their life they would be doing very well.

[Ed Suspicious]

76. Republican talking points equal facts in the mind of the Bluedog dems.

Panhandlers are the problem? Got it.

[Thinkingabout]

94. Went over yiur head? The point was even the homeless exploit others, it isn't the 1% of income and

Wealth, the zero wealth also exploit. It happens across all income levels. This was an example of the low income exploits also.

[grasswire]

128. ridiculous

just ridiculous

[ladjf]

146. You have carried the meaning of "exploit" to a new now level.

Homeless people in America have a negligible effect on the economy and other Americans lives in general.

The super rich 1%'ers are wrecking our economy and causing untold misery among our people.

[Thinkingabout]

162. Tell the writer of the op exploit has been carried to a new level.

If there is a law about exploitation it will have to be for all or it is not an equal law. I work on a minimum wage job, I have and understand misery also. I know struggles also so I dont need to be reminded how tough it is to keep a roof over my head. Lots of those panhandling are not homeless.

My point was to show where even those panhandling are also exploiting others. It is not limited to any income bracket.

[randys1]

103. Makes you want to throw up reading that stuff on DU, doesnt it.

[Ed Suspicious]

105. I really does.

[Dont call me Shirley]

91. "The 1% does not need the other 99%"...

Oh really, the whiny .01% would implode without us. They rely on us to keep their world functioning. Who are they going to hire to fix their toilets when they crap so much it overflows? Another 1%er?! Not! They couldnt survive without us for one second, those spoiled brats.

[randys1]

107. That comment shows so much doesnt it. Without us the 1% have NOTHING

but you have to think it thru to understand why

[Dont call me Shirley]

151. I'd happily watch a .01%er try to snake out and repair his toilet. Or repair a leak on his yacht.

Or wash his own sheets and make his own bed. Or do her own nails. Or change the oil on his Rolls. LOL! Now that would make for some awesome tv, we would all be laughing our asses off as they bumble around like GHWB trying to figure out how to scan his own groceries!

The hate us because they don't know how to do anything other than scam people. Who are the envious ones, eh? The inept scammers.

[randys1]

152. They would literally die without us doing their work for them.

[Dont call me Shirley]

153. IKR! A worker strike is in order. Whaa! How would they get their liver pate?!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

177. Holy shit! This has got to be some of the most delusional drivel I've ever had the misfortune to

read in this here site......... Maybe even the internet.

"The 1% does not need the other 99%, if they never made another dollar in their life they would be doing very well."



Sure, 'cause all those servants, assistants, nannies, personal ass wipers, etc, etc are all in the same income bracket as those they serve. You see they don't really need the shitty income. They just do it for shits and giggles. Of course the 1% doesn't need all these services either. They can do it all on their own and only employ those people out of the goodness of their heart.

[Thinkingabout]

185. I did not start the delusion, I did point out several times exploitation is in all income levels.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

186. Was what I quoted above written by you or not? nt

[PowerToThePeople]

124. Ya it is a right wing talking point.

This rule does not seem to matter any more since we lost mods to the jury system. It makes DU suck.

[Thinkingabout]

210. RW talking point, no, just facts.

[PowerToThePeople]

212. No it is right wing bullshit

You've needed a pizza and a shove back to your cave for some time now.

[Thinkingabout]

214. Who do you think you are impressing?

[JonLP24]

12. I was with you until you said panhandler

The most I ever heard was $150 in a day from a fellow vet I met through a VA program holding a homeless vet sign but that was just for one day, it wasn't consistent though the homeless vet holding signs make more than those holding any other sign including signs like "homeless with kids".

I was in a misdemeanor courtroom one day to see a woman from Bulgaria who had to be assisted by a translator for the crime of trespassing. She was within 150 feet (or whatever the AZ law for 3rd degree trespassing is) of a "No trespassing" sign written in English while holding a sign "Please Help -- 2 kids -- God bless".

Besides they have the option to give the money or not. You aren't obligated to give someone your money, you can say no. It is entirely different situation with the likes of Bill Gates lobbying for more H1B Visas threatening to go offshore if he doesn't get his wish.

I was with you in the sense I've been taken from, stolen from all sorts of poor people and not so poor people. I've been pulled over & robbed at the same time. (I think I have to explain this one)

I was driving a taxi on New Year's and was having a very good night before midnight thinking this might be a night someone would try to rob a driver so I threw a roll of 20s -- $120 total in the glove compartment. With ASU Mill Avenue blocked off there were a row of people on the side of the street hailing taxis, stopped for the first group that got in lights behind me with cabs all around me picking up fares the same way, it was far hectic in Old Town Scottsdale that I left there for ASU because I was afraid of either getting into an accident or a ticket. Cop asks for registration and had my glove compartment open the whole time while he took it to his car to write me a ticket. I forgot about the money and the passenger took it, didn't realize until I was turning the cab in and the money gone but I made enough for a motel room for 2 days rather than a weekly.

[Thinkingabout]

22. This panhandler happens to be someone I know personally, there was another case where the family was

getting $700 a day, even had a baby to take to the streets to increase their take. I know some are panhandling because there is a need but lots are not in this category. Yes we have those who rob the hard working people, they don't work so they take from others. It is a vicious cycle.

[JonLP24]

30. Homeless people take from homeless people

Rich people steal from homeless people, vice versa, etc. $700 a day tell me where so I can go panhandle there, tell me what I need to bring, but so what? If they ask and people are giving that much money away per day, which is a remarkable number, then that is their choice. I have known several panhandlers, some that do it all the time, at-best I seen someone give $60 (this person I loaned $10 to 3-5 months earlier and paid me $5 from the $60) but for the most part people make pocket change standing by the freeway (best location -- I don't know of one more profitable either but it has "no trespassing signs" at the intersections.

Hard working people generally are robbed from by their legislatures, congressman, presidents, financial institutions Wachovia robbed me a hell of a lot of money with their overdraft fees, way too high interest rate (didn't realize I could 3x lesser one til it was too late), etc.

What is with the panhandling is nothing compared to advertisers

[Thinkingabout]

44. Yes, homeless people steal from each other. The $700 a day was a couple working in different places

What do you need to bring, they had a baby to get extra sympathy. This was some years ago, in Houston and the mom with the baby stationed herself by the Galleria. Police investigated and found three freezers in their home full of food.

Do you remember the movie "Trading Places"? I think this is true. The homeless guy goes into the big house and invites his homeless buddies, immediately the buddies started stealing and destroying the house. Exploiting is not just in the legislatures, and not confined to the rich, it is in all incomes.

There was a story, may not be true but Trump wanted to play with his brother's blocks along with the ones he had and the brother agreed. When the brother wanted his blocks back trump said he could no have them back because he had glued them together.

[JonLP24]

57. Police investigated and found a fridge full of food?

What was the crime? They asked for money and people gave it them?

I will say sociopaths are at all levels from top to bottom and many people use or take advantage of other people at all levels but the lack of money or not wealthy. The Trading Places move, I don't remember it very well though what you describe is actually very common though not aware of a homeless person got a mansion but homeless person got housed and had homeless "move in" on the person and the same result. When I was homeless, I always left places before I felt or they felt I was there too long and go out of my way to not take advantage. I was very grateful of a friend who let me take a shower and store bags and not have to worry about it when I'm gone. A couple let me stay at a place, one in particularly asked me to anytime or welcome to anytime and meant it but a lot of times I didn't despite the option. When I was housed I had the same thing happen but it was very complex rather than simply just that, I won't tell it as personal (more to protect others than myself) but it started by accidentally the wrong (didn't know it at the time) homeless person who was without a doubt 100% sociopath a long with the person who asked for self (didn't ask for the sociopath I accidentally extended it to the sociopath). I fell terrible about that not because of myself -- sometimes you see the world is an incredible cruel place.

However, I find that those who lack money or the very rich lack the sort of ethics or they find relationships, internal qualities, other things besides money important as the rich find that every cent they aren't making isn't good enough. More, more, more as the are trying to commercially exploit the entire planet & exploit and abuse labor as the world is becoming one big forced labor camp. We are seeing a world that is becoming more cruel, cold, and people are more desperate. Thousands of migrants are drowning on overcrowded boats in the Mediterrianian -- the defense industries are the largest international arms traffickers in the world -- the US doesn't ever look for political solutions they look for get rich solutions. Someone dies from being collapsed under rubble so Lockheed Martin can resupply a $1.5 million bomb dropped.

[Thinkingabout]

59. It was three freezers.

[JonLP24]

66. Is that a crime?

I wouldn't care if Bill Gates was out there panhandling. If people want to give him money because he is asking them to that is fine by me. I'm trying to figure out the exploitation here.

Using false information (don't mean disclosing how much food they have on the cardboard box -- In downtown Olympia I've seen "Why Lie -- I need beer" - it wasn't that but similar there was a rhyme to it) or anything like that I have big problems with dishonesty, unethical, etc. True stuff even for sympathy I don't have an issue.

Personally, I could never panhandle, do telemarketing, sales anything like that because it is very uncomfortable for me so I'd rather starve than do that and I remember where I met "Robert Redford" and a woman with 2 dogs, while she was gone manager saw the dog ordered us out grabbed the leash, helped carry belongings, etc. I waited by a bus stop next to a fast food place while to wait (completely random) while she tried to arrange a little money. With the dogs & stuff I watched them so she was able to go. I didn't ask for nothing but all of sudden people were handing money and I wasn't even asking! It wasn't pocket change $10, $9, a box of food, people were giving me like $30 in about an hours time with one person telling me to "take care of your dogs" (not my dogs). People getting out of their cars in the parking lot to give me money. Crazy. The best prop are dogs I figured out but it was a one time only situation for me & completely unexpected.

[Thinkingabout]

68. The actual crime was cruelty to a child who was pulled crying onto the median to "work"

For donations. In the investigation the other information came out.

I am a busy person and I will not be answering any more replies of this nature.

[snooper2]

155. this is the case right wingers use against the left so you know

"do telemarketing, sales anything like that because it is very uncomfortable for me so I'd rather starve than do that"

[JonLP24]

166. It is the truth regarding me

I don't want to be a car salesman, I don't like to solicit random people for stuff or generally prefer something like that which is why I don't like to panhandle. I always never liked the phones or a phone job so I probably wouldn't want to be customer service either (I have tried and applied and generally get denied -- no experience) I have like once in the last several years and told "no", just would rather do something else for money. I'd rather do backbreaking, hard labor stuff and I have -- over a decade ago I could go in a labor office get sent out right away, every day. These days there will be 30+ people there and few tickets going out.

There is a telemarketing in my city called PCC. The job requirements are to solicit registered Republicans for donations to I don't know which Republican organization. The job would be very uncomfortable for me so I'd rather starve than do that. How about you?

I don't care what the right says. Telemarketing firms have very strong bargaining power over labor, turnover rates are high and the reason why they can cut under performers loose despite time & overall sales, benefits, security is because there are more coming in with postings of possibilities of how much money can they make and management of those firms (from higher above, usually independent for other firms like Dish) are ripping off from their customers & their workers. I'm striking for better wage security and a more ethical approach from the top.

[snooper2]

168. I have a family, and a MIL to take care of- if it's street vs shitty job-

I take shitty job-


That may just be me though-

[JonLP24]

173. I joined the Army to do my best financially to support a family

knowing a highly likely going to be deployed particularly with the MOS I choose. I did. I'm thousands of miles across the world and there are family issues I'm too far away to do anything about and did all that.

I already tried a job like that years ago. Sales, you'll see ad promising so much. I put on a suit show up and am basically not hired, I wouldn't be good for. I don't try to pitch people, it is a skill that I do not have. Telemarketing you show up and only a few survive long term though.

My only "street job" was recycling cans. The only other thing I tried to do was eat, find a place to sleep which for the most part was the park during the day time. At night there is no where because you're trespassing anywhere you choose and I couldn't unless walking all the way out to the desert, even if I tried during city limits I couldn't sleep worried about either a cop or anyone else coming across from me. Fell asleep using a backpack as a pillow near a bus-stop one time woke up down the hill next to a wall with my backpack gone.

The telemarketing thing was used to illustrate why I don't like to panhandle and I'd rather starve than panhandle. I'd rather collect cans than panhandle or telemarketing. Thankfully I haven't had to do either since my period of homlessness and helping family right now. What is the problem?

[tymorial]

125. I was homeless for a year

You're invisible. No one wants to see you. They walk by and pretend you aren't there.. even if you aren't asking for something. You were just like them once but they don't realize it. They think you're nothing... you're inconvenient. You wonder if they think, "why don't you just go away or die. Why aren't the police getting rid of you."

At first you stay at the shelter as much as possible. Eventually you will find there is no room and you are all alone in the night.
You get no sleep because you are afraid that someone will hurt you, rape you, or murder you. You try to sleep during the day but you can't. You're still afraid.

You find soup kitchens but its never enough food. You are hungry all the time. If you still have clothes you might try to find a day labor job but after awhile, no one wants you around because you are homeless. You're invisible.

You get sick and you've never been sicker. No warm bed to keep you comfortable. No couch to curl upon and watch TNT primetime in the daytime. You have no medicine. You have no Nyquil or Tylenol. You suffer and hope it will go away soon... god, please don't let me die.

Some turn to drugs and alcohol to get buy. It makes the pain go away for a while and less afraid, maybe you can sleep. Maybe just a little sleep. Eventually the other homeless begin to recognize you and you find some sense of community even though you can never truly trust anyone. At first you dreamed of your home, your warm bed, your 3 meals a day, your job, your family... after a while you dream of finding a blanket somewhere or paper that you can pile up to keep you warm. If it is cold you dream of hot days when its hot you dream of cold. You think maybe you should try to move south but its too hard. You're so very tired. You know the streets here... where it might be safe at night. As time goes on the harshness of your life makes you lose all sense of pride. You start to beg both for food and if you have a habit to feed it... it makes the pain go away... I gotta make the pain go away.

Please do you have any money? Just a few cents? No, god bless.
Can you help me? I am homeless and I need food. thank you, god bless.
Please can you spare a dollar so I can get a coffee to make me warm?
Thank you God Bless... and we mean god bless because we so very hope God will look at us.

I made $40 today, I can make the pain go away and get some food. I will save and buy new clothes so I can get a job and get off the streets. That is what I will do.... its so very cold tonight, I need to drink to stay warm even though I know it doesn't really help. There goes my savings. Tomorrow will be better. Tomorrow I will start to save.


Please do you have any money? Just a few dollars? Thank you sir. Thank you so much.


Timothy - 2005

[randys1]

127. This makes my wanna cry "You're invisible. No one wants to see you. They pretend you arent there"

I have a close family member who is homeless.

You rightwingers keep this capitalism shit up much longer and someday the homeless and the almost homeless might revolt.

I dont want to see violence, but what the rich do to the poor EVERYDAY in this country is plenty violent.


By YOU rightwingers I do NOT mean the person's who's post I was responding to, I was just using that post to make a point

sorry

[tymorial]

130. Me a rightwinger?

lol surely you jest.

[randys1]

131. Where did I say that? I dont even recognize your board name

oops

I see what happened, no i used your post to respond

was talking to the collective you OUT THERE

was agreeing with you

I do that a lot, sorry

[tymorial]

137. lol no worries.

I was scratching my head for a second. I certainly disagree with people on here once in a while but I thought I was fairly consistent Thank you for the support.

[SummerSnow]

165. Thank you for this tymorial. I was homeless for almost 2 years..

I had an apartment and fell on hard times. We stayed at a shelter. And you're right, no wants to see you and you're invisible.Go away etc. My only sister did this to me. She turned her back on me and my children.Before we were homeless she visited all the time. We laughed and talked on the phone all the time and even went places together. When I asked for help she refused.When we got into a shelter, she never visited. She would call on the phone, never asking how we were doing, never offering any kind of help or encouragement. All she did was talk about family gossip.It was if my situation didn't exist. She looked down on me.Because of this I stopped speaking to her.

[JonLP24]

179. I or you

is you me and I you? Post is confusing.

The first 3 paragraphs are true for me whether you meant me with you. The fourth the winter, the middle of the night, no place to go freezing walking around all night until buildings opened up to get warm was like that.

Do you mean me throughout the whole post? The reason why I ask is because you switch to I.

[tymorial]

180. I thought that I included where this came from.

I was going to edit it and then I decided to leave it as is. I must have removed the beginning where I stated this came from a notebook I kept while I was homeless. It was random thoughts on the page. At one point I was writing as if I was explaining what it was like to be homeless that is why it was you. Other sections were personal so it was I.

[JonLP24]

181. I saw the name and year at the bottom

though wasn't sure what it all meant. Posters or a poster or two found seem to have found a post of mine somewhere in this thread offensive and the "you are invisible" it felt like you were speaking to me because it was ringing out true then the "do you have money" and "god bless" didn't know was random or a reference to my post about the woman in the courtroom as me and people next to me in the back row thought it was messed up when the prosecutor was asked about the info in complaint which was she was within this many feet of this sign of an English speaking sign when she needed a translator and the prosecutor said what was on the sign "Please help - 2 kids - god bless" which we all thought it was very screwed up that instead of doing something to help her they charged her with a crime. The offenses seem to involve my panhandling posts so I wasn't sure the you at the bottom so decided to ask.

Sorry about that. I figured as much but after the responses, I didn't know what to say.

[haele]

41. Most panhandlers don't make that much. Maybe 2% make even close to that.

Even in the big cities. The ones who do generally busk or try to attract attention/entertain while they're doing that, so yeah, in a way, they're working. I don't consider buskers panhandlers, now - do you?

I've spoken to quite a few panhandlers in California, make regular contact with around 12 as I go by. Most average around $50 a day on the days they are "working", and they're usually out there for over 12 hours. I know of only one who actually regularly lives under one roof; the rest have their belongings nearby and sleep in bushes in the canyons. Most of them just get spare change every 12 vehicles that pass.
The ones who get dollar bills (and the most I've heard of was from a legless Vietnam Vet who occasionally claims to get $5.00 from a "regular" who passes by him about twice a week) are ones that have either created such a pitiable appearance (and not just skinny wearing dirt and rags) or go out of their way to provide entertain or some bit of work such as impromptu stoplight windshield cleaning.

Your "$200 a day exploitive" panhandler is only raking that money in about 10% of the time he or she is on the street. The rest of the time, they're making butkis; maybe enough for a pack of cigarettes, a 24 oz beer to share, and a sandwich.
The thing about panhandling is that a panhandler can't force you to give them money, and if they're too aggressive, they get even less and get thrown in jail to boot.

Look, most panhandlers are people who are usually so damaged by living out on the street, they're incapable of holding down a job for more than a month or so, no matter what their potential is. They've hit rock bottom so hard, they broke. Honestly, there are few I would hire even to mow my lawn on a regular basis - not because they would steal, but because they drift.
It's not the lack of a hard work ethic, because frankly, standing beside a freeway in the elements for hours every few days is as hard work as quite a few other jobs they could get.

There's a lot of discussions to be made about panhandlers and homeless, but none of those discussions would compare to what we could discuss concerning the exploitive nature of the 1%.

Haele

[Thinkingabout]

46. The point was those who are homeless exploits, people in all incomes and net worth exploits, it is

not sa%ved for the 1%, if it was just the 1% it would easily be controlled.

[haele]

47. If you are discussing the human drive to expoit resources to "get ahead" - that covers everyone.

And I would agree with that, but not in the terms that you put it in.
If you are making excuses for people on the upper end who are considered "respectable" for doing something that the poor slob at the side of the freeway is doing, then that's another discussion because there's a level of exploitation that is significantly out of whack.

As I said, the panhandler can't force you to give up more than you are willing to give him or her, or they go to jail.
Just as an entertainer or "celebrity" who gets money for being attractive or outrageous can't force you to spend more money than the price of a ticket or media access to watch him or her.

For the sake of your point - Televangelists are panhandlers just the same as the Traveler (a term for a US or British road-gypsy that makes his or her living off panhandling, busking, street entertainment, gleaning or stealing) on the freeway off-ramp with his wife and two kids sitting under the bushes in the background.
The Khardassians, the Duggers, and the Palins are panhandlers.
They all exploit people who are willing to recognize their humanity and give them money. However, they can't force you to give money.

Unlike the financier, the broker, the person who makes predatory loans and investment scams, has lawyers that can force you to give everything you own and more, go bankrupt, or get stuck working your life off under indentured servitude to pay them off "what they are owed". And for the most part, they don't go to jail.

Haele

[Thinkingabout]

52. My point was exploitation isn't just in the 1%, it is everywhere, OP did not go to the other 99%

also exploits, since there are more of the 99% than the 1%, probably more exploitation in the 99%. Also, there are those in the 1% who gives to those of lesser means.

[WDIM]

198. Yes crime is everywhere among all classes.

But my point is the super wealthy create the conditions that our economy operates. The greed of the super wealthy is the reason for poor and homeless many times.

The bank bailout of 2008 is a great example. We sent billionaires billions of dollars to save their banks due to bad loans that they knew would go bad. These billionaires didnt risk their own personal assets instead they took from all the people to cover their own bad bets. And when the people saved their bad bets they still foreclosed on the peoples homes sent people to live on the street and ruined lives that people are still recovering from to this day.

So these mega billionaires were the panhandlers and they took 700 billionaire dollars from the tax payer and it wasnt the tax payer that okayed it. It was the banks hired representatives in washington dc and the bush crime family that okayed it.

So when your panhandler friend makes 700 billion with a gun to the head of the american people come back and maybe youll have a comparison.

[Thinkingabout]

207. You got the facts wrong. You can be as angry at the 1% as you want, it will not serve you well,

This will not make them poor and will not make the rest rich.

[WDIM]

208. Not angry, just trying to wake people up to the crimes

Of the greedy criminal upper class.

Manipulating a country to go to war is not a crime?
Making trillions off the death and destruction of innocent people is not a crime?
Building weapons of mass destruction and dropping bombs on civilians is not a crime?

This criminal class needs its assets seized and its wealth given back and reparations given to the families of their victims.

[Thinkingabout]

209. Please point out the crimes.

[JonLP24]

73. The leading cause of homeless is the lack of affordable housing

that is what happened to lead me becoming a homeless Vet before it was going to happen I had this incredible fear but when it did the most difficult issues were finding a place to sleep, take a shower(the most difficult part), and store belongings in a safe place. The other is you're pretty much trespassing everywhere within city limits. I go into homeless services meet other homeless Vets. The $150 for one day that I know of came from a Vet who was homeless when I met him, probably around 200 pounds, and actually had housing at the time when he was holding the sign. I don't know how much he made at any other time, or how many times total he's done it. He has more social skills so it doesn't bother him and asked me to come but it was something I didn't want to do at all. He'd say you don't have to say anything just hold a sign.

Another homeless person that wasn't a vet used to ask me to come with her all the time but always turned it down because I was just uncomfortable with it. For money I usually collected cans, $1.00 a pound. $10-$30 depends what days & hours.

As to my statement Vets or those holding the signs make more than other panhandlers was based on another homeless panhandler that isn't a Vet though said that to me but I don't have numbers or figures.

I'd be very careful with "most panhandlers" and say there are incapable of holding job due to being damaged when there are many issues at play here. I was homeless twice. 2 months after I got a job, was working, still without housing long story short I was forced into deciding between this place or an expensive motel and was stolen from countless time. I had like two $100 unpaid fares. Fare evaders, half payers, homeless again. Shit happens but certainly it isn't because of a lack of effort as you can't be lazy and be homeless, you constantly move around because and homeless shelters are way too much like jail & pretty much lack the resources to provide what they need (unless you're a Vet though you have to be lucky to find the right places).

$200 and vet seemed closer to a response to my post because of the $700 and bringing a kid but in any case, what I have said here is honest (probably too honest but I can live what I say as long as it is true).

[haele]

90. And San Diego is particularly bad for outrageous cost of living.

Panhandlers here are generally either homeless, couch-surfing, or living in RVs with others, because even if you could collect $100 a day, you'd have to be out every single day to make any headway - just renting a room costs a minimum of $500 a month, and studio apartments usually start around $1000 for an unfurnished - even the old coldwater flat ones with a common bath at the end of the hall.
And not all homeless are panhandlers, either. Many work. Which is something the poster I was discussing didn't seem to understand; he seemed to equate homelessness with panhandling and definitely connected panhandling with taxpayer/worker exploitation. And that was what I was trying to address, as most of the panhandlers I was aware of were homeless.

However - most homeless around here are not panhandlers; they are day-laborers, minimum wage/under the table workers, or too disabled, too old, or too young (teen homelessness is a big problem) to just go out and work a living wage job where there's taxes taken out of the paycheck.

Potential to for a person "get a job" rather than live on the streets and beg is not synonymous with a person's actual capability to "get a job" rather than live on the streets. PTSD runs rampant. Chronic or Clinical Depression can easily be triggered by over-stressing of even the seemingly strongest person, and once it has it's grip on someone, you can't just tell them to get over it. Clinical Depression just doesn't work that way; time, therapy, brain chemical changes or a combination of all three are pretty much the only way someone can "get over it" and turn their lives around.
The issue some might have with just saying "too broken to work" is that chronic homelessness also does a number on mental health of an individual; while mental health is not a predicator of one becoming homeless, the fact that over 30% of homeless have mental health issues indicates that not everyone can bounce back from hitting rock bottom, no matter what services are available to do so.

And that's where a lot of people make the mistake of judging homeless. I apologize if it seems as if I was indicating all homeless were mentally ill, panhandlers and jobless.
A lot of mis-understanding can be present when socially-based hot-topic buttons are talked about; everyone has their own perspective, and with many, a selection of anecdotes is all that is required to reinforces their argument.

Haele

[JonLP24]

176. I never said per day

I'm trying to make that clear. $150 was the highest I ever heard someone tell me they were making not that he made it every day and I know he went out and came back empty. I don't know how much panhandlers made per day or overall rate or not of that. You see up-thread for the most part they make "pocket change" but that is a guess.

I'm telling I was homeless and interacted with many homeless people so I've known and know homeless people. The $200 per day and vets was why I felt the need to clarify what I said. The only poster with the hundreds per day was poster #1 said a family was committing child cruelty making $700 per day with 3 freezers full of food.

I think there are misunderstandings here and certainly am probably sensitive on this issue. I agree with a lot of what you say and is pretty much the same here. In my experience most homeless I knew weren't panhandlers either, many shared similar social axieties I do. My own perspective is panhandling is incredibly difficult to make money and the selection of anecdotes were the lucky ones. Driving a taxi, one time I picked a customer at the mall drove out the reservation, customer handed me a tip of $100 and said "Merry Christmas" that is rare but doesn't happen all the time. I don't know what was perceived to be from my posts, just relaying my personal experiences as I have learned from many different individuals everyone had a very unique circumstances that led them to where they are now. A variety of reasons including trauma, PTSD, a numerous host of issues.

The per day of hundred or over regarding vets was why I replied. I only said he said made $150 once, all other times I don't know but certainly know it was an average like that.

I was just telling me story because of the whole can't keep a job is I see the problems has a lot to do with not having a house the challenges of maintaining a job are far more difficult because you are exposed basically. Challenges unless there is a place to store belongings, rest, shower, etc. Transportation, expenses, etc.

[tymorial]

102. Oh yes because panhandling as you call it is sooooo very easy.

Have you been homeless? I have. You have no idea what being homeless is like if you haven't been there.

[Thinkingabout]

109. You missed the point, exploitation happens in every income level. The OP pointed out the 1% income

And wealth level, I pointed out the bottom level. Exploitation does not know a level, it happens in every level.

[FrodosPet]

201. I make about $40 to $60 a day working 14 hours a day

And I am frequently giving a dollar or two to people on the corners. So where do I apply?

[geek tragedy]

2. Are you talking world 1%ers or USA 1%ers? nt

[hack89]

3. Household income of $388,000 puts one in the top 1%

That's what two hardworking professionals could make. That is what a successful small business would make.

Perhaps you meant the top .1%?

[WDIM]

19. Top 1% of wealth not income.

Wealth is assets minus debts. If you make 400,000 a year but owe $500,000 in debt you are not in the 1%

[booksandpencils]

56. So your system...

Would favor high income earners with high debt and punish lower income earners with low debt who save for decades. Do you not see how twisted that is?

[rhett o rick]

96. That's what you got out of that? Tell us what you would prefer. nm

[booksandpencils]

104. Yes, it is.

An increased tax on income makes a world more sense than seizing assets of anyone with a net worth over 1 million.

[rhett o rick]

118. Raising taxes on income will only hurt those with "reportable" income. That system sees GE getting

cash back from the government. While seizing assets may be a little strong, we can't survive if we don't do something drastic. The status quo that some are advocating will only see things get better for the 1% and worse for the 99%.

[booksandpencils]

122. Good plan

Seize the assets of a middle class shlub like me to stick it to the billionaires.

I can't survive if you steal my entire life's savings. The person making 400K can make more money pretty quickly. Families like ours will be left with nothing. This type of plan is a risk to our very lives. Forgive me for not being on board.

[rhett o rick]

133. You know full well that no one is advocating taking the wealth from the middle and lower classes

except maybe Goldman-Sachs. Why are you deliberately trying to mislead this discussion? Do you support the 1%?

[booksandpencils]

150. I don't support seizure of assets

Especially when the bar is 1 million, as the OP suggested, which is NOT the 1%.

It's not misleading to take the OP at his word.

[snooper2]

163. Define middle class in terms of take home income per year

I expect no reply

[rhett o rick]

187. Interesting that you are reluctant to express your opinions, just ask questions.

It's easy to just ask questions. It's a tactic I notice that the conservative wing uses.

Why is it necessary for me to define something for you to make your point? I am guessing you don't have a point and hide behind questions.

[DFW]

161. But if you make $400K a year and have no debts?

Are you then part of the 1%? And taxed at what rate? at what point does someone become a friend no longer, but an enemy because they got a pay raise?

Labels, labels. I would much rather hear the story of someone who has seen homelessness first hand and freed themselves of it than being told whom to hate because they lucked out with their job.

[Major Nikon]

171. Top 1% in income = ~$400K regardless of wealth

[el_bryanto]

4. Just the 1%?

So anybody making over $400k a year (in the United States) gets to have their assets seized

What if you are only in the top 50% but you work in the finance industry?

Bryant

[WDIM]

23. Top 1% of wealth not income.

People are getting it twisted. I am talking about the true 1%. If your assets minus debts is over $1 million then you exploited people to get it plan and simple.

[el_bryanto]

33. Ah - so this is just envy for the wealthy

You aren't really looking at the structural causes of our problems, but are just focused on the bad characters of those at the top.

Bryant

[booksandpencils]

51. No, not true at all.

What you are describing is a net worth of greater than 1 million, and many people manage to accrue that on even middle class and upper middle class incomes. Most of this money will be found in 401K and home value. It does not require any sort of special exploitation.

[LanternWaste]

61. That's a rather creative, unsupported and arbitrary line you've set for moral justice.

"If your assets minus debts is over $1 million then you..."

That's a rather creative, unsupported and arbitrary line you've set for moral justice. No doubt, you'll explain (objectively and with peer-reviewed evidence supporting it) how one penny can either save one from being an exploiter of other people, or force one into your label, yes?

[gollygee]

64. I googled and the top 1% have wealth of at least $9 million.

Lots of people have wealth over $1 million, if they are able to pay of their houses and plan for retirement. Not enough people can do that, by a long shot, but $1 million in wealth isn't nearly as much as you think it is.

Also, the income level for the top 1% is at least $522,000.

[WDIM]

196. $9,000,000.00 and they need to keep taking more?

Id say that is probably about the line where the true criminals start. Imagine the number of people who have been injured by this greed.

[1939]

69. How about if I win $10 Mill in the lottery?

Who have I exploited, the other ticket buyers who didn't win?

[lumberjack_jeff]

95. Top 1% of net worth is about $8.4 million

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html

Plenty of people amassed $1m net worth through employment.

[rhett o rick]

98. Don't let them get to you. Some here wish to have honest discussions while others

are just looking to tear someone down. I think your point is good but you are struggling with the argument. Ignore those that just want to give you crap.

And then there are those that will always defend the 1% even as a Democrat because they think that wealth equals success.

I think one has to have over $9 million to be in the top 1% per wealth.

[WDIM]

197. The people who defend the 1% have a delusion

That they are in the 1% or may be able to join someday. What they dont understand it is a more exclusive club then they are lead to believe. And they will take everything from you if they get a chance.

[rhett o rick]

218. Some are deluded that those that are included in the 1% (wealth) are successful and

should be admired and worshiped. And a few deep down believe in "trickle-down".

[randys1]

110. Capitalism is exploitation of labor. Most people posting on this forum are not capitalists, they

may want to think they are but they are not.

You can use money to make money, exploit labor, like Mitt Romney for example, and this makes you a capitalist and in my book a piece of shit.

[redstateblues]

172. That's ridiculous. The broad brush approach is BS

[aikoaiko]

5. or maybe we just need to adjust our tax system and properly fund services and infrastructure.

I reject your F*** the rich calls to action.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. ^^^This^^^

No elaboration required

[Hekate]

35. +1

[Warpy]

58. And the only way to avoid taxation

should be to build industry within the borders of the US exclusive of territories like the Marianas.

They want to be called job creators, let's force them to create the jobs.

[tblue37]

7. Not always. The 1% (vs. the .01% or .02%) include professionals like doctors who

Last edited Mon Jul 13, 2015, 02:05 PM - Edit history (2)

have been forced by our insane system to go tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt for their education.

My doctor daughter graduated with NO debt from her undergrad degree (full merit scholarship), but after med school, she had close to a quarter million in debt, plus the accruing interest that amount of debt causes. She makes an income that puts her in the 1%, but she works THREE jobs to earn enough to pay down that debt because the interest grows it fast, and because at age 34 she desperately wants to have kids.

But since an accident or illness could destroy her ability to earn that sort of income, she is rushing to pay down her debt fast. She has gotten the principal under $200,000, but she wants it under $100,000 before she will feel safe buying a house or starting a family.

A Fullbright scholar with two master's degrees and double-boarded in two medical specialties, with about 50 publications, and a string of awards and major roles in cutting edge scientific projects, she is still working killer hours at multiple jobs to reduce her debt load and hope to start a family before her biological clock ruins that hope.

Not all 1%ers are parasitically exploiting the 99%.

On Edit: I didn't realize the income for the 1% was nearly $400 thousand/year. I guess my daughter is in merely the top 5% in terms of yearly income (but NOT in tems of assets!).

[WDIM]

14. 1% of total wealth not income.

If she owes that much in debt she is not part of 1%. Wealth is assets minus debts.

[WDIM]

15. 1% of total wealth not income.

If she owes that much in debt she is not part of 1%. Wealth is assets minus debts.

[tblue37]

16. Of course, BUT that is not how most Americans think of the difference between the 1% and the 99%.

Americans in general don't do nuance. They think in binary terms.

[randome]

8. May I see your income scale to determine at what cutoff a person falls into the 1%?

What if someone falls within 1% of your definition of 1%? Does that make them part of the same 1% or a different one?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[meaculpa2011]

9. There are some years when I'm in the 1%...

and other years when I'm not.

As a part-time exploiter do I have my assets seized only in good years?

Then, in not-so-good years do I get to seize the assets of others?

[AngryAmish]

11. Despite what you say about me, I still like you.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Top ten richest members of congress.....

1.Rep. Darrell Issa R-Calif. $357.3M
2.Rep. Michael McCaul R-Texas $117.5M
3.Rep. John Delaney D-Md. $111.9M
4.Sen. Jay Rockefeller D-W.Va. $108.1M
5.Sen. Mark Warner D-Va. $95.1M
6.Rep. Jared Polis D-Colo $73.6M
7.Sen. Richard Blumenthal D-Conn. $62.1M
8.Rep. Scott Peters D-Calif. $45.0M
9.Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-Calif. $43.7M
10.Rep. Suzan DelBene D-Wash. $37.9M


I have a feeling that the Democratic party will not be entirely on board with your sentiments.

[WDIM]

25. I bet every one of those voted for the bush tax cut and the bank bailouts.

And promote a system to make the rich rich.

[Hekate]

32. Show us your research on all of them, please. I can tell you enjoy divisive pot-stirring.

[brooklynite]

55. Want to know someone who voted AGAINST the Bush Tax Cuts?

Hillary Clinton.

Damn 1%ers...

[WDIM]

101. but she voted for the Iraq War

And the war profiteers are still thanking her.

[randys1]

111. That's not why she did it. She did it for political expediency, and almost all politicians do that

[WDIM]

199. War profiteers and their puppets are the most guilty of all.

The wars for profit in Iraq and Afghanistan are exactly that and every politician that voted for that war and to fund the war profiteers is no better than a war criminal and yes i know that includes every member of congress and senate... War is just another tool to take from the masses and keep the rich rich. Every war is a richman's war that the poor fight.

[Arkana]

17. Really? Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy would disagree with you.

[WDIM]

21. Why? Their families exploited many people.

For them to be that rich.

[Arkana]

27. And yet there was never a greater champion of the middle class

than Franklin Roosevelt. Blaming him for the sins of his family--blaming JFK for what his father did--is unfair, considering what they did as President.

Nice broad brush attacks, by the way.

[WDIM]

36. And they had rich guilt and wanted to change things

That is good. The rich should feel guilty everytime they see a homeless person.

[Hekate]

50. And you know this how? Some humans have a sense of ethics, morality, caritas, compassion...

....public service, giving back.

Some come by it on their own, but in most cases these grow from lessons taught in childhood. By their families -- a family culture -- which is why both the Kennedy and the Roosevelt clans are so often mentioned in this context.

But it goes beyond family culture and extends to the culture at large. Thanks to the tech boom, some new billionaires were created (Gates, Jobs, et al), who got rich off their own innovations and, yes, hard work. I've noticed that now these early entrepreneurs have hit late middle age, they are in the "giving back" stage. How about we give credit where it is due?

Point the finger at Wall Street, the Tax Code, the Enron mode of doing business ("greed is good&quot where corporations no longer sell product but money changes hands in vast sums as businesses are sold and sucked dry for profit. There's where the culture, laws, regulations, all need change. There's where you'll be on the side of Senator Elizabeth Warren.

I have a feeling you don't go in for nuance, though. Easy slogans and broad brush attacks are more your style. Stir the flame bait pot, fish for inflammatory replies.

[JustAnotherGen]

135. Let's go lower - the impoverished

You couldn't win in 2016 running on his platform - as it played to people who had nothing.

2016 is about the middle class.

FDR really drove for the last and the least.

I also think the middle class (not at DU per se - outside of this bubble) has as much resentment towards those in poverty as they do the top 5%. It's not politically expedient for them to say it though.

[1939]

71. JFKs 1963 income tax cut was huge.

He blamed the rolling recessions of the Eisenhower years on the 91% top tax bracket and cut it to 70%.

[alarimer]

20. Our tax system is grossly unfair.

The 1% (all of it) need to pay more, relative to the rest of us. Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, for starters, because it benefits the upper middle-class and higher more than it benefits anyone else. There is probably a way to phase that out for incomes over a certain amount.

The thing is, even the liberal rich can be clueless, entitled jerks. You see it on this very website whenever the topic of poverty comes up. The tone-deafness is incredible.

Many people don't realize they have not gotten there all by themselves. They had a hand up, just by virtue of being middle-class to start with.

[1939]

72. Mortage tax deduction (and all other dedcuctions) do phase out under the current tax code.

Make too much and all of your deductions and personal exemptions go poof.

[brooklynite]

24. When you come for me, please aim for the head.....

I get a lot of grief for "boasting" about my economic status. In fact, I only bring it when it's relevant to the discussion, as it is in idiotic comments like this one.

1. You state that nobody can possibly "deserve" to have millions; you post this on a computer that was one of the innovative technologies of the late 20th Century, a device everyone wanted and was willing to pay for. I'm not going to begrudge Steve Jobs or Bill Gates their success. Nor am I going to criticize my wife for the long hours and extremely talented legal work she does.

2. You assume everyone spends the same way; my wife and I chose not to have children, saving us about $500,000 compared to a working class family with two kids. Are you saying we don't have the right to invest those funds and spend them as we want to?

3. More broadly, you push the "rich = evil" analogy; never mind there are plenty of successful people who are liberal, who support candidates like Elizabeth Warren, and would be happy to have their taxes raised to provide social support for the economically challenged; all rich people are all bad...just like all poor people are virtuous liberals.

In any event, anonymous venting on a political blog may make you feel good, but we both know you won't do anything about it.

[WDIM]

34. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are exploiters

They exploited their workers. They stole ideas and are vicious sharks. They produce goods over seas for slave wage prices and they over charge the consumer back home for defective and inferior products.

Most lawyers besides legal defense that works for pennies exploit people everyday. They put the laws in place to make the exploitation possible and then represent giant companies against the little guy and destroy lives.

If i made more money then i needed i would give it away. I wouldnt be like most of the super wealthy that manipulate government for tax break and incentives and corporate welfare.

I can only do my part. I do all transactions in cash. I say no to the banksters and the credit man. Ultimate goal would be to be out of the system completely providing for myself and my family and refusing to give the super wealthy any more of my life. Until the false economy collapses and a new economy that benefits all people not just the top 1% wealthiest families.

[A HERETIC I AM]

65. "If I made more money then (sic) I needed I would give it away"

Bollocks. Pure and unadulterated bollocks.

Don't for one second try and convince anyone that you wouldn't improve your living standards even slightly, or buy a nicer car or a better, if not simply newer wardrobe.

You would likely eat better, use more resources and take advantage of the income you were making

Posts like this occur with predictable regularity on DU and the cause is usually the taste of urine in ones breakfast cereal

Okay, great. You have convinced everyone you hate rich people. Heaven forbid I point out all the things in society they pay for lest I be accused of that horrendous crime of defending wealthy people, but there you go.

If tomorrow I offered you a position that paid you five times your highest ever annual salary, I am sure you would be very charitable, but I'll also bet you would be looking for nicer digs by sundown.

One other thing;

For you and all the others on DU over the years that have called for a complete economic collapse so that your utopia can be established, thanks very much for being so circumspect in those wishes that you would call for unknowable misery for billions of your fellow humans

[WDIM]

100. The unknown cannot be worse than the known.

Obviously you are okay with an economy based on the misfortunes of others. An economy exploites workers and pays fat lazy ceos crazy incomes for playing golf andbjet setting around the country giving speeches.

Maybe you just cant stand the cognitive dissonance of realize that you have money because you have exploited people yourself or you work for an industry whose only goal is greed and no matter what the cost is to the rest of humanity. The wealthy are the true criminals in this country. And all the good they do no where makes up for the death and destruction they have caused. The lives they have ruined and the destruction of our planet and its resources.

[A HERETIC I AM]

126. You've been here for 7 years, we have never interacted and STILL I get the same tired bullshit.

Last edited Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:50 PM - Edit history (1)

"If you don't agree with position "A" then you are clearly OK with killing babies" (or some similarly ridiculous assertion)

Obviously you are okay with an economy based on the misfortunes of others.

Obvious, is it? Damn. And I was trying SO hard to hide that. Ridiculous.

An economy exploites workers and pays fat lazy ceos crazy incomes for playing golf andbjet setting around the country giving speeches.

Which economy? This one? Is that what you think every CEO does when they are out of their corner offices over looking the East River? (because that's where they ALL have their offices, right?) Your acrimony for that type of person has clouded your objectivity.

Maybe you just cant stand the cognitive dissonance of realize that you have money because you have exploited people yourself or you work for an industry whose only goal is greed and no matter what the cost is to the rest of humanity.

I can just see the red in your eyes, the furrows in your brow and the spittle coming from the corner of your mouth as you typed that. If it made any actual sense, or if it applied to me in any way, shape or form, I might answer it. But for the life of me, I can't get past the spittle in the corner of your mouth. Wipe that off, willya?

The wealthy are the true criminals in this country. And all the good they do no where makes up for the death and destruction they have caused. The lives they have ruined and the destruction of our planet and its resources.

Yes, of course. Because everyone on the planet that has a net worth higher than the nebulous figure you have in your head wakes up every morning and rubs his or her hands together with glee as they contemplate ways to fuck over their fellow man.

Here...let me help you with that.....

[AlbertCat]

139. The wealthy are the true criminals in this country.

Y'see...

EVERYONE has to be poor. That's fair!

[A HERETIC I AM]

143. ...

Got it. Thanks, man!

[Recursion]

154. What utter bullshit.

Go see a lot of the rest of the world if you can't imagine a worse economic setup than the US.

[1939]

75. So generous

"If i made more money then i needed i would give it away. I wouldnt be like most of the super wealthy that manipulate government for tax break and incentives and corporate welfare."

I give away all of the money that I don't have as well.

[philosslayer]

87. Do you own a computer?

Or a cell phone? If so, you are perpetuating that system by buying the goods that were produced with slave wages.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

26. Some exploiters are better than others, I think

I'm thinking about those who risk their money in trying to change the world, like Elon Musk.

[clarice]

28. Does the 1% include ....

Actors, entertainers and lawyers? If so, I agree with you.

[Hekate]

29. You mean like the Kennedys? Like Bill Gates? A few others I could mention. Broad brush....

....meet bucket of paint. Be sure not to splash yourself.

[Hoyt]

31. If you seized all those assets and distributed to everyone, it wouldn't be a lot per person. PLUS,

the moment seizing assets was seriously discussed, the asset value of just about everything -- but maybe gold -- would drop like a rock, particularly stocks, real estate, and the like.

Further, when you crash that "phony economy," you might be surprised with who ends up in control and what they do with respect to the economy. In any event, lots of folks -- even the poorest -- would be hurt in the process.

Now some kind of tax on assets, restructured taxes on income, etc., certainly make sense.

[Recursion]

37. Globally the 1% starts at about $28k / yr; by wealth it's about $350K

So....

[Ed Suspicious]

78. In our little section of the globe, 28k isn't exactly a lot of money. But we do have refrigerators

so our poor are pretty well off I guess.

[Rex]

82. That was his "Foxnews" point.

Pathetic ain't it? What some (that are not in the 1%) will do to defend those few that are trying to fuck it up for the rest of us!

[Recursion]

136. Wealthy people always hate being reminded of it (nt)

[randys1]

113. Yep, if you have a microwave then the Koch Bros say you should stop whining about

working more in one DAY than both koch bros combined and all their relatives combined along with the entire Walton family and their relatives have worked in their combined lifetimes.

Yes, if you go to work today you work harder and more hours than all of them put together for their entire lives.

But, you have a microwave and a fridge.

Sure you work two jobs, you never see your kids, you go to sleep, if you are lucky, every night, with a knot in your stomach because of all the worry you have about surviving.

But you are rich...

[Recursion]

141. Global microwave ownership is about 20%

http://www.floatingpath.com/2013/07/17/global-penetration-rates-of-home-appliance-ownership/

That's roughly the same 20% of the world wealth distribution that the entire US wealth distribution fits inside of.

If you want to limit your view of economic justice to the US alone, that's your prerogative. Just like the guy in Beverly Hills can sincerely say $500K isn't "really" rich.

[randys1]

142. This is the reasoning the Koch types keep using, sad to see it here though at DU

That since having a microwave is something some poor dont have, you must not be poor.

got it

[Recursion]

144. "The Kochs say it" is not an argument

I get that you don't care how rich America is compared to the rest of the world. That's the kind of privilege that wealth brings, to not care about that.

[randys1]

145. Nonsense...Koch talking points wont work here....try again

[Recursion]

147. Snort

Yep, never fails. The rich cannot admit they are rich. Just human nature.

[Recursion]

134. Yes, we do. Americans don't like hearing how rich we are

Being reminded of that really bothers some people.

Not too long ago, a bunch of DUers were talking about the movie Snowpiercer, which they saw in a building with climate control and running water, but still managed to mentally caet themselves as the people in the back of the train.

[Rex]

80. .

[Recursion]

138. Guys in Beverly Hills talk about how $500k isn't "really" rich there

As Plato said, no man has ever thought himself rich, asleep, or drunk at the time.

[dumbcat]

38. Who do you envision

doing the seizing?

[WDIM]

49. The people. nt.

[dumbcat]

115. LOL!

See you at the Front!

[Godhumor]

39. I reject the idea of forced redistribution utterly and completely

But it was a good rant.

[Ed Suspicious]

81. Why? We are forced to redistribute all the time. Every time Halliburton wins a no-bid

government contract I am forced into redistribution. Good for the goose is good for the gander. We're all in this together.

[Godhumor]

89. Forfeiting assets and forced seizure, as the OP suggests, is what I'm talking about

Not a debate on how the government utilizes monies collected.

The OP is a fantasy and not a particularly good one.

[rhett o rick]

99. In the last 40 years the wealth of the middle and lower classes was redistributed to the

top 1% and it wasn't voluntarily. Raising taxes on the wealthy would be forced, but I think it's absolutely necessary for our survival.

[Godhumor]

106. The OP is not talking about tax structure

In the context of this OP, my statement stands, as I am not talking about balancing the tax system (which I support). The language in the OP is about seizing assets, taking homes, etc.

It is a revolution fantasy and a silly one.

[rhett o rick]

116. Seems we have little choice but fantasy. nm

[WDIM]

200. So you reject taxes and welfare? are you sure you're on the right board.

Those are forced redistribution. We just need to do a bunch more of it and start by taking from the people who have taken from people by illegal and exploitive means such as war profiteering, bribery, blackmail, racketeers extortion insider trading all the things the large banks do.

[Godhumor]

203. Don't pretend you're talking about taxes or government spending

You want to seize private assets of anyone over a certain percentile. And, judging by how little support you're getting on this thread, I find it amusing you think I am the one on the wrong site.

[WDIM]

205. For the criminals they should have their assets seized.

Lets begin with the war profiteers from Bush's wars of profit.

Any gains from investments in the war industry should also be seized.

Then we should go after the mega banks and their puppets for their racketeerting and extortion and theft of tax payer funds through tarp and other welfare for the rich to cover their bad bets.

Then the labor exploiters that use slave and child labor over seas. The ones that exploit labor markets and artficially depress wages and then use goverment subsidies like food stamps to supplement their employees wages.

Then the exploiters of our natural resources and the polluters. The people who steal from our planet and sell the natural resources that belong to us all back to us for insanely greedy profits and the people that with hold new and more efficient technologies that do not require natural resources. Technologies that could change the world are being with held or down played because of the greed of the fossil fuels industry.

How about we start with those criminals first?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

40. Bernie Sanders is worth $330,507 as of 2013.

He pulled in about $200K in 2014.

That puts him in the 1%. Is he an exploiter?

[WDIM]

48. Yes, politicians live off other people.

He is a career politician.

We should have voluntary representation in congress and the senate that moves around the populous like jury duty. It should include housing and expenses while they are in washington dc and they should go back to work when they go home.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

60. You heard it here first, folks!

Bernie Sanders, exploitative member of the 1%.

[gollygee]

63. That doesn't put him in the top 1% by a long shot

I've done some googling and the top 1% has an income of at least $521,411 for income, and has at least $9 million in wealth.

http://www.usfunds.com/investor-library/frank-talk/what-does-it-take-to-be-in-the-top-1-percent-not-as-much-as-you-think/#.VaQIlkr3arU

and

http://www.joshuakennon.com/how-much-money-does-it-take-to-be-in-the-top-1-of-wealth-and-net-worth-in-the-united-states/

[Rex]

83. Waste of time, the few 'progressives' here defending the actual Owners have no clue

as to what that means. I think most of them are just concern trolling for jollies at this point.

[Recursion]

148. I'm not the one who picked "the 1%" as a meme

Don't blame me for pointing out that the literal "1%" include most of the US. Find a better meme if you don't like that.

[taught_me_patience]

42. Gonna have a hard time passing constitutional muster

After all, the 4th amendment is pretty clear:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

[brooklynite]

53. No, no, no...this is when the MASSES rise up and overthrow the system...

...no doubt with the OP leading the way.

[WDIM]

54. Civil Asset Forfeiture

It was taken by illegal means therefore it is not truly their property. They put the law in place for civil asset forfeiture the people should use it against the racketeerers, the embezzlers, the war mongers, the exploiters, and all who have violated civil rights and the natural laws of humankind to be greedy and rich the crimes against humanity done by this class of people shpuld truly disgust us all.

[randys1]

129. Problem is most of what the capitalists have, while surely stolen, is legal, because they

get to write the laws, appoint the politicians (under the pretense of free elections) etc.

[WDIM]

170. what they do is against the law or use to be. now just not enforced.

Racketeering, extortion, embezzlement, war crimes and war profiteering, election fraud, usury interest rates, crimes against humanity, loan sharking, insider trading, the list of crimes done by the extremely wealthy can be long and some times includes sex trafficing rings, drug dealing, kid napping, rape and murder.

[BKH70041]

43. I'm all those things!?! Cool!

If you do have a job, could you get back to work and stop wasting time posting? You're cutting into my time.

[stevenleser]

45. Occupy was right, you are wrong.

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

- Occupy Wall Street.

[randys1]

132. I agree this cant be an us vs them thing at this point, it is too far gone.

There are some of "them" who are to blame, Koch, Walton family etc.

But they are just the famous ones, many more we dont know their names.

But for the most part these vile excuses for human beings have not broken the law.

Therefore, the laws are obviously lacking.

Need to write new ones, but need free elections first.

[ucrdem]

62. In some cases, but then there's Hollywood and Silicon Valley money. . .

"New money" in the words of F. Scott Fitzgerald, who made and blew through a small fortune of his own. In other words it depends on the person.

[LittleBlue]

67. Asset seizures? OK comrade

We tried communism and it failed.

[Ed Suspicious]

88. We tried communism? No, as Dr. Richard Wolff tells it, the early 20th century communism

in the Soviet Union failed because they kicked out the owners and replaced them with owners. Life went on not much different than before. The problem was that they never reallocated the surplus value of the labor into the hands of the laborers. They went from exploitative private corporate capitalism directly to exploitative government capitalism. Real communism has the workers take back control of the surplus value of labor. Real communism has those produce take charge of the rewards.

http://www.rdwolff.com/content/marxian-economics-intensive-introduction

[SidDithers]

70. DU rec...

this thread is all kinds of awesome.

Sid

[Throd]

74. So once we eliminate the current 1%, what do we do with the next 1%?

And the ones after that?

[Ed Suspicious]

92. Think of the rich people!

[Throd]

93. At what point does the mob stop seizing assets?

[randys1]

120. Get rid of capitalism and you wont have a 1%...

[Throd]

121. That isn't how math works.

Unless you are proposing a cap on maximum individual wealth.

[randys1]

123. Huh? Without capitalism that is exactly how math works.

Without capitalism at least the way we do it now you pretty much eliminate the insanely imbalanced economy.

[Recursion]

156. Ummm... you'll always have a richest 1%

How do you propose avoiding that?

[randys1]

157. Technically I guess the 1% could have two tv's while the 99% have one, but as to the kind

of wealth or income disparity you are thinking of, you only get that with the absurd capitalism we have now.

There would be balance if you did it right.

You have to stop thinking in terms of capitalism.

So much would be different it is hard to even imagine it now.

[Recursion]

158. The USSR managed some pretty hefty inequality without capitalism

How did they do it?

[randys1]

159. Corruption

[Rex]

79. Yes the parasitic class (they hate that btw) has gone from that annoying flea bite

to a lethal tick. They COULD back off a bit and give the REST of the planet some breathing room, but that will never happen. You need a body that has some shame and humility and that is the main ingredients lacking in the very few sending us all off a cliff of economic dispair.

They just don't really give two shits about us, they don't have to.

[Ed Suspicious]

84. And if they would have they probably could have played the game largely unencumbered

through infinity, but they can't just have most, they want it all no matter what the cost.

[Rex]

86. Truer words have never been spoken.

They could have slowly drained us of all our blood, long before we noticed it was far too late...instead they are bleeding us out like a pig being made ready for the spit. We have no choice but to notice our own mortality.

The level of greed is amazing to behold, yet I have no doubt it follows the exact same pattern throughout the history of Western Civilization.

[WDIM]

202. Their level of crime has become so blatant

The insanity of the megawealthy's crimes most people don't even comphrend. Our media isnt going to tell us because the megawealthy owns the media. They created wars of aggression to make trillions for the defense contractor. They still practice slave labor over seas. They exploit labor markets and every other market. They rig elections. They corrupt and bribe and extort. They are true organized international syndicate crime bosses. They murder rape pillage and plunder. They steal from the tax payers while buying over inflatted government debt to steal from the tax payers again. And when the tax payers cannot pay them any more they extort the tax payers with threats of austerity and cuts in vital services.

It is out of control and people need to wake up.

[jtuck004]

85. "have their assets seized and redistributed to all the people" < ROFL

They would have it back faster than they got it the first time. You have to train and educate the people on how to keep it. Most folks are not taught how to keep and use it, because that is much harder. But it is the only solution.

It's a lot easier to work for the Master.

"I saved a thousand slaves. I could have saved a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves." Harriet Tubman.

The wealthy have nothing except what other people worked for and gave them. Willingly.

They only have two eye, two legs. If you didn't call them"Master", if you refuse to work for them, spy for them, make them safe, they would not be able to do what they do. You enable them. We all do.

...
"A little spark can start a flame which will devour all the wood it finds, growing stronger all the time. But you do not need water over it to extinguish it — if you stop supplying wood it will consume itself, since it has nothing else to consume, and will languish and die out. In the same way, the more that tyrants pillage, the more they exact and extort, the more they ruin and destroy, the more you give them, the more you subject yourself to them — so much the stronger they become, so much the readier to destroy everything, to wipe out everything. But if you give them nothing, if you withhold your obedience, then — without you having to struggle or strike a blow — they become naked, defeated, mere nonentities, nothing but the dry, dead branch of a tree whose roots have been deprived of moisture and sustenance."
...

http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/sbc.htm

We are living in Voluntary Servitude. Ever read this? Why not?

It's easier to pretend it is in someone else's hands.

[WDIM]

204. It is rigged not voluntary.

The elections, the nomination of political leaders, the media influence on peoples perspective, they were able to brainwash a vast majority of this country into a war of greed in Iraq.

They control the information the majority of people receive. They sell people on debt as a good thing. So people have a house financed a car financed and credit cards and they work for the master chasing this illusory american dream because of condition and programming from the day we are born.

The mega wealthy want people to stay asleep everything is okay while they are the burgular taking your wealth out the back door.

Yet you are correct there is a level of self responsibility and many victims are volunteers.

[BainsBane]

108. So if you spend a lot

buy a huge house and a fancy car and get loans to pay them off, then you're cool. But if you earn that same amount of money but don't engage in conspicuous consumption, then you aren't?

What if you're in the upper 2%? 3%, 5%, or 10%?

Anyone making $400k a year, who doesn't spend most of it, should have their assets seized, but if you make $395k a year you can keep it?

[booksandpencils]

117. Yep

This plan isn't quite the war against the 1% the OP thinks it is.

The OP would seize my assets. We're a single income, middle class family. We would face ruin. Meanwhile a lot of our friends making 3x our income will take their twice annual vacations, go to the steakhouse every week and be golden.

Any wealth tax needs to start at levels nearly impossible for the middle and upper middle class to accrue.

[pnwmom]

112. What if Bernie Sanders and his wife, by dint of hard work and careful investment over decades,

accrued enough to put them in the 1%?

For example, what if they bought a little apartment building in Brooklyn in 1982, have rented it out at fair rents over the years, and now they own it free and clear and it's worth a small fortune.

Would you say they are nothing but exploiters?

[Douglas Carpenter]

114. As long as we have any form of mixed system including an

Advanced Scandinavian type social-democracy the very function of
our economy requires a prosperous investment and entrepreneurial class.
Since every experiment in total collectivism has failed and mixed economy
Social-democracy has come the closest to producing societies that meet the needs of every one while maintaining open, free and relatively democratic societies - I would rather stick with an economic model that has
at least some successful track record. I would be more concerned about
lifting up the "have nots"than stirring up resentment against the "haves".

[Sunlei]

119. $400,000 even with no debt, is not the 1%.

[AlbertCat]

140. Where's Mao when you need him?

Obviously, you've met every single wealthy person in this country. Right?

[cherokeeprogressive]

149. Stir up some shit.

Yup.

[Glassunion]

160. When I was 14 I started working odd jobs.

My grandfather told me to put money aside each week. So I did.

Every week for the past 26 years I put aside at the minimum $25. Now that I'm older, I put aside about $100 a week. I've never counted any of that savings money as "mine". It belongs to the older me. And since I'm married it belongs to the older (and rather beautiful) Mrs. Union as well.

I live below my means, put aside money in my 401k and my savings, which I put into many different funds.

I've had good and bad years. Compound interest, diversification, and the determination to not touch it, plus my real estate value (just paid off the house), I'm sitting at about 950k.

I consider myself wealthy. But my 1,200 square foot home wouldn't fit too many homeless people.

[brooklynite]

169. What if you and Ms Union moved out?

apparently we 1%ers need to stop thinking of ourselves...

[Glassunion]

174. Our retirement plans are simple.

Sell house, buy boat, do charters. So I would not mind moving out today. We'd have enough to start that small business. But I'll let you in on a little secret... Shh, don't tell anyone.

I actually like my job, and the people I work with. I enjoy developing my employees into successful people.

[seveneyes]

164. Monetary or intelligence?

It makes a difference

Survival is a peer to intellect ...

[raouldukelives]

167. Not at all. Someone can have a lot of wealth from good works.

When they start destroying the lives of others is when it becomes an issue.

Like, say they give some of that money to Wall St. Next thing you know you will have supported the corporations that have supported the Republican Governors Alliance, South American death squads or denial of climate change.

As long as someone isn't gaining wealth on making the world worse for others, on paying others to bear false witness against the least, I have no issue.

[daredtowork]

175. They are a Rentier Class (see the French Revolution)

And Oligarchy means they use access to the government to secure rent-taking opportunities. This goes for Democrats as much as Republicans. The insiders vs. outsiders code enables the protection of the rent-seekers and paves the way for revolving door cushy jobs outside the Beltway because of their International "contacts". Even Chelsea Clinton got her first 100k consulting job out of grad school because of her "rolodex". I will always remember that because I had just left grad school with a useless degree at the time and couldn't even get a temp job for minimum wage office work.

After 2008 Wall Street foreclosed upon middle class property and forced people to rent back their homes. Now, however, people find it increasingly hard to find regular salaried jobs. "Lean" and "agile" companies want contract and project workers, shift workers, and gig jobs. People still have to shell out for rent and bills on a monthly basis, but the employment system will not deign to pay them on a monthly basis anymore because it's not expedient for them to do so. And they can get away with it as long as they can whine to the D.C. Powers That Be that they won't be "competitive" or "innovative" if they have to pay the little people. They can pay a few superstars for "game-changing" products or Intellectual Property acquisition 3D chess, but they don't pay for trivial matters like work.

This continues to go on simply because the people allow it. We have done nothing to curb celebrity windfall salaries. We have done nothing about the Beltway Lobbyist Revolving Door. We whine about the Third Way's "leveraged buy out" of the Democratic Party, but we don't actually stop them from gutting social programs or failing to allocate money towards rebuilding civic infrastructure. When we vote in "our" representatives, we need to take note of whether they are actually doing things to change the shape of the rentier economy. At this point this not only involves the forbidden word "redistribution" - I think this involves actively and visibly toppling the exploitative class and giving the people the satisfaction that justice is being done: before they decide a new French Revolution really is in order and get justice for themselves.

[Taitertots]

178. You're setting the bar to low. The 1/1,000,000'ers

The top 1% isn't all Kochs and robbers.

People making $100,000,000 are massively over compensated for their contribution to (insert any reasonable economic indicator).

Reversing it is super easy:
Increase top marginal tax rates (add higher brackets).
Tax high frequency trading.
Tax capitals gains the same as regular income.
Revise the corporate structure so liability for the debts of a company can be taken from the owners (if "corporations are people" then we should treat their debts the same as their income).

[Calista241]

183. Your last one would devastate the country and lead to total economic stagnation.

A minority of people in this country work for the big corporations that do all this political advocacy and take advantage of all these corporations are people craziness.

120 million people in this country work for small businesses (businesses that employ less than 500 people).

A very high percentage of new businesses do not make it and either go out of business, or file for bankruptcy, or whatever. 8 out of 10 of these new businesses fail within 18 months. Approximately 543,000 new businesses get started each month (but more employer businesses shut down than start up each month), and over 1/2 of these businesses have annual revenue of less than $50k.

The entrepreneurs that have the balls to put it on the line and take the risk to start a new business would disappear overnight if you made their personal assets seizable for company debts.

[Taitertots]

188. Nothing supports your assertion/opinion

You are suggesting that responsibility for your debts would cause a capital strike?

If they "have the balls" to take the profits, then they can "have the balls" to be responsible for their debts.

[Calista241]

194. Yeah, well, I'm just glad you're not in charge.

You're talking about the jobs of 120m people in this country. Cleaning services, tree removal, recycling companies, electricians, plumbers, office managers, etc.

The vast majority of these people do not get rich despite having the claim to "owning their own business." If you started seizing their assets, and knowing that 80% of small businesses fail, these businesses would evaporate like it's going out of style.

[Taitertots]

195. None of those jobs would disappear if liability followed ownership

You're suggesting that ending pass through liability will cause a capital strike. There is no reason to believe this would happen.

Being responsible for your debts isn't "seizing assets.

[Recursion]

184. The last one is a HORRIBLE idea

Most successful business owners have had 2-3 failures before they succeed; you'd make that impossible.

[GeorgeGist]

189. So society should underwrite corporate failure?

[Recursion]

190. Absolutely. That's what bankruptcy is.

That's why somebody can start a business, fail, and still be in a position to try again rather than being destitute.

[Taitertots]

191. Nothing is stopping them from failing again and again

If their bad decisions leave them underwater, then they can file for bankruptcy.

Why should capital be protected from their own bad decisions?

[Recursion]

192. Your idea would let debt from Business A follow to Business B

which means Business B now dies too.

[Taitertots]

193. Untrue. Debts from Business A go to the owner, not business B

[Recursion]

220. And the owner owns business B, which can be liquidated by the creditors (nt)

[PowerToThePeople]

221. Why not auctioned off

to the highest bidder to be kept whole in order to pay off owner's debt? Current owner loses the business, but the business stays whole under new ownership.

[get the red out]

182. My guess is

That they don't read DU.

[WDIM]

206. Lets begin with the War Profiteers!

Now that i have read many replies it is evident we do not see the crimes that are playing out in front of our face.

Most of the argument was over the definition of the 1%.
Lets set that bar at $10,000,000 in assets AND income of $500,000 per year plus.

First of all it would take a person earning median wage of $60,000 per year 160 years to be paid $10 million.

So the 1% ALREADY have 160 years worth of wealth.

Anybody who has that kind of wealth is pure greed. They have ruined lives and stepped on many little people to get to that stature. Unless its family money in which case they have probably never worked a day in their life.

I have stated above the criminality of the exploiter class and how their actions have impacted lives around the globe. From wars of profit to stealing from the US treasury and rigged economies that funnel money to the top.

These criminals have taken from us enough for 3 lifetimes and now is the time for the people of the world to demand it back!

[R.A. Ganoush]

211. Come and get it,

And we'll see what happens.

[PowerToThePeople]

213. Enjoy your stay

[WDIM]

215. how do you live with the guilt?

Of profiting off of other people's death and misery?

Atleast you admit to being a war profiteer. Honesty is a good virtue.

[PowerToThePeople]

216. moles do not have any guilt. n/t

[WDIM]

217. I'm really hoping for an answer.

Profits from misery and they spend the money with a smile.

[R.A. Ganoush]

219. I should have said

go ahead and try to take it from them and see what happens...

I should have been clearer, sorry.