Ayn Rand/Koch flunky: "The 1% are still nowhere near being 'rich' '"

[brentspeak]

Want to know how dumb and self-delusional some libertarian 1%-worshipers really are? Read this (libertarian) Reason Magazine online comment from a Koch-fan (calling himself "Lorenzo Valla&quot who is arguing with someone who isn't going along with Reason's usual bull$hit (the person he's arguing with is not me; I'm just reading the exchange):

https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/21/if-pope-francis-wants-to-help-the-poor-h#comment

Lorenzo Valla|9.21.15 @ 12:58PM|#

Yes, that is the whole point. There seems to be a big misconception that 'wealthy' people come from wealthy families and are only wealthy because of this greater advantage.

It's certainly true that this happens, but most so-called wealthy people started off at the bottom of the income scale and worked their way up.

And, most people people in the 1%, while obviously more wealthy than others, are still nowhere near being 'rich' despite being routinely labeled as such. Most are high income earners who still have to go to work each day, whether they like it or not, just like the rest of us working stiffs.

.......................................
blik|9.21.15 @ 2:00PM|#

Are you fucking joking me?! Ha, the 1% is nowhere near being rich? Here's the worlds smallest violin. It's funny why the uber-rich would go to work at all. Then compare themselves to the plebs working 12hr days with 4hrs of commute, just so they can live pay check to pay check. Get fucking real you bougey fuck.

log in or register to reply

[randys1]

1. I am less concerned about making the argument about the 1% vs the .01 and so on and

more concerned with simply saying capitalism doesnt work.

[alphafemale]

3. True. nt

[alphafemale]

2. In a way. Yes.

Especially if you are talking globally.

Less than maybe a thousand or so people control most of the wealth.

That is like the .00001%

[brentspeak]

4. I suppose if you want to Play Dumb

and expand the meaning of "The 1%" to include the 1% of every mud-hut village in undiscovered parts of China, Korea, and Nigeria, then, yeah, you can make some bizarre argument that the 1% aren't really rich.

[hfojvt]

11. sorry that is just a myth

Just look at the United States. http://equitablegrowth.org/research/exploding-wealth-inequality-united-states/

According to that the top 0.1% owns 23% of US wealth. About the same percentage as the bottom 90%.

That still leaves the 90th to 99.9th percentile with 54% of US wealth, and the bottom 99.9% with 77% of it.

Of course, in my view, people in the top 0.2% and the top 0.7% are still damned rich.

Also 0.1% of over 100 million US households is 100,000 people. (Actually households, something over 300,000 people)

That does not even include PUBLIC wealth either. My local water department, for example, has about $40,000,000 in assets. What is a public pool worth? A public high school? The interstate highway system?

The Forbes 400 has something like $5 trillion in wealth.

But the rest of us have something like $75 trillion. Even the bottom 90% has over $16 trillion - three times as much as the Forbes 400.

[bluedigger]

5. US average $1.3m/year.

Varies from $5.1M in Wyoming to $0.5M in west Virginia. Draw your own conclusions. http://www.businessinsider.com/one-percent-in-every-state-2015-5

[Art_from_Ark]

6. If I had $1.3 million,

I could live my current lifestyle for 60 years.

[enough]

7. Good point. (nt)

[hfojvt]

9. that's an odd chart

here's a better example

http://www.itep.org/whopays/states/kansas.php

The chart says that for Kansas it takes over $439,000 to make the top 1% but their average income is $1,191,700.

Thus annual income of $440,000 is in the top 1% for Kansas even if that is barely more than 1/3 of the average.

Doing it by state is gonna be skewed though.

Because it takes $569,000 a year to make the top 1% in California. Thus some of those 1%ers in Kansas would NOT be 1%ers in California. Or for a poor state like Mississippi, it "only" takes $306,000 to be in the top 1%. But a household making $310,000 a year is probably NOT in the top 1% of the nation. Because there are a whole bunch of people in much larger states like California and New Jersey who make more than that. Heck, it takes $263,000 to get in the top 5% in New Jersey.

tables for all 50 states http://www.itepnet.org/whopays.htm

[wordpix]

8. yeah, they "still have to go to work" to make more million$ each subsequent year

gimme a break. Unless you're supporting a family the size of an army for decades, you don't need $50 billion like each Koch bro

[hfojvt]

10. there are people on DU

who have argued the same thing.

That anybody who works for wages, even if their income is $400,000 a year is working class, and NOT "really rich".

And many like to define "rich" up higher and higher. To where even the 0.1% are not "really" rich (when compared with the astounding wealth of the 0.01%)