"Breaking down the 99 percent: Where do you fit in?"

[GreenPartyVoter]

The Occupy Wall Street protesters say they speak for the 99 percent of the population left out of the gains made in recent decades by the super rich.

"The one thing we all have in common is that we are the 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%," a website affiliated with the protests declares.

But that's a big group, encompassing a vast range of incomes. So where do you fit in? The Wall Street Journal has posted a nifty calculator that allows you to enter your household income and find out.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/breaking-down-99-percent-where-fit-145717114.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. WSJ trying to deflect from the actual class cohesiveness of the 99%

Nice try.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I like how they ignored factors like localized cost of living and so forth.

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. They also ignored net worth

Some savings will buy you some time if you have no income. Even if the savings are meager they will afford some alternatives that are not otherwise available.

But if you have no income and no assets (or worse, negative net worth) then you are in a whole different world of hurt.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Very true!

[HardTruthPAC]

13. "OWS demands: Campaign Finance Reform via Constitutional Convention

"OWS demands: Lets bypass DC and get money out of the
political process via Constitutional Convention"

Please take a look at the Act our PAC is supporting in an
upcoming petition drive in Washington. It should look pretty
good to Democrats, it is the Disclose Act that passed the US
House last year.
http://www.hardtruthpac.org/#!disclose-act

We can use this energy to do something very important that
need to be done.

The Disclose Act supported by Hard Truth PAC

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
prohibit foreign influence in federal elections, to prohibit
government contractors from making expenditures with respect
to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure
requirements with respect to spending in such elections.

Dylan Ratigan's Amendment

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type,
domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money,
directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office
or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of
campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for
Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the
U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal
holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal
office."

Lawrence Les sig's Amendment

"No non-citizen shall contribute money, directly or
indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office. United
States citizens shall be free to contribute no more than the
equivalent of $100 to any federal candidate during any
election cycle. Notwithstanding the limits construed to be
part of the First Amendment, Congress shall have the power to
limit, but not ban, independent political expenditures, so
long as such limits are content and viewpoint neutral.
Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes
of voting for candidates for Federal office."

As we come to the conclusion that calling for a National
Constitutional Convention is the only route for the voters to
take, you may ask "Which amendment should the voters
support?"

Dylan Ratigan's Amendment does not allow a person to
contribute to a campaign. Hard Truth PAC believes that the
People must be allowed to voice their support for candidates
of their choosing. Bernie Sanders could not support this Act
as it is when asked directly on Dylan's show, but he said
that he would support something like it.

Lawrence Lessig is correct about the impact of the ideas in
his amendment. However, Hard Truth PAC believes that the
idea of publicly funded elections will not be as popular in
as many states as Dr. Lessig assumes. We need the support of
the states to effectively call a convention.

The Disclose Act advocated by Hard Truth PAC has already
passed in the U.S. House, and it nearly passed in the Senate.
The votes cast are public record, and Sen. Snowe (R) voted in
support of the Amendment. It prevents direct corporate and
foreign influence in our elections. It also allows our courts
and legislature flexibility to close loopholes, and does not
allow them to create more.

Hard Truth PAC believes the Disclose Act is the best solution
to the crisis of representation our country faces today.
Please share this with others.

[ladjf]

3. That question is irrelevant. We, 99% people, are all in the same

group and have more or less the same problems because of it. nt

[strawberryfield]

14. Maybe true, but a lot of people don't group identify by wealth or income

Most of my neighbors are small poor ranchers. They are mostly libertarian types, who know that they don't have much, but on their little ranches they think they are God. A poor rancher with 50 acres is more likely to see more in common with a rancher that has 3,000 acres than he is going to see with a retail clerk in New Jersey.

[DefenseLawyer]

4. So if it was the "98%" would it significantly change the issue?

I think not. Even if it's the 95%, the problem of not only income inequality but a system that basically guarantees income inequality remains just as bad for the nation as a whole.

[Javaman]

6. Another divide and conquer article. no thanks. nt

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Problem with their 'calculator' is it doesn't ask for family size. I'm a single person so I get more

bang for my income than if I had to support others.

[Scuba]

8. Are WSJ readers supposed to represent an average cross section of Americans?

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. They seem to think so.

[hfojvt]

11. I don't like the way they say this

"To land in the top 1% YOU need to make over $506,000".


Uh, no, it is actually based on household income. So YOU could make $30,000 a year and be in the top 1% if your spouse makes $480,000 a year (or you could make $260,000 and have a spouse that makes $280,000 and be in the top 1%).

Of course, one of the things driving inequality is that a person making $400,000 a year rarely married somebody who makes $30,000 a year. They usually marry somebody who also makes about $400,000 a year. Although, even if they did marry somebody making $30,000 a year, they probably would use their connections and clout to get their spouse a better paying job.

Also, $500,000 seems high. From IRS stats, I have the cut-off to the top 1% at about $390,000. Of course, those stats are skewed downwards because they include teenagers who file a return and married people filing separately. The statistical abstract doesn't go over $200,000 for household income. In 2009, the latest year, 20.1% of households made over $100,000. and 8.2% made over $150,000 and only 3.8% made over $200,000.

Taking IRS stats from 2005, there were 828,323 filers with incomes over $500,000 (and 524,506 of them had income less than $1,000,000). SAUS has 117 million households in the US in 2009, and the IRS only had 1.39 million filers with income over $380,354. Those people would be the top 1.19%.

So again, I think $506,000 is too high. Does it really take another $126,000 to shave off another .19%? I would put it closer to $425,000, and think the Wall Street Journal has inflated it by 19%. I still think it does us harm if the "middle class" is upwardly defined.

[DefenseLawyer]

12. As has been pointed out

You can't really focus exclusively on annual income and ignore accumulated wealth when looking at the problem either.