Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How much more would the 99% make if the 1% took a pay cut?

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 15, 2011, 8:14 p.m. EST by golgol12 (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The 1% starts at about 400k a year. So I will ask with this question with this number.

If everyone took a 50% pay cut on all income made above 400k/year, and that money was funneled into the income of the ones below 400k/year, how more, as a percentage, would the sub 400k/year people make?

12 Comments

12 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Steve15 (385) 12 years ago

Wow, trolls need to get jobs and give up their full time OWS stalking. I mean......who does that. Are you trolls over 18?

[-] 0 points by voteGOP2012 (5) 12 years ago

@ModestCapitalist Are you kidding? Cutting the incomes of the top 1% would be awful for our economy. We need to decrease tax rates while increasing the base. It is the top 1% that will put money into new businesses and help to get our economy going again. Also, these businesses will employ the 99%. If there is no money to invest, guess what? You don't have a job.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Small businesses with total annual revenue of under $500,000 create more jobs and share more wealth dollar for dollar. They do so with far fewer tax breaks and subsidies. Often with none at all. They are not owned by the rich. They are owned by the upper and middle classes. Thats not to say that I want the rich out of business. I only want them brought down a peg or two.

When its all said and done, the rich concentrate way too much wealth even after taxes and job creation. They cause the middle class to shrink and the lower class to expand. With less potential for higher profits to be made from a shrinking middle class in a consumer driven economy, the rich throw a fit and cut jobs. This process results in more need for financial aid. This increases government spending. The model simply can not work any longer.

Say that reminds me.

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually more like 98%), saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.

The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 12 years ago

IMO vey little of it would make it to us. Most of it would be absorbed by government.

[-] 0 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

The incomes of the lower 99% would increase by about 12%. Thats right. 99% of Americans would see an increase of 12% in every paycheck if just 1% of the population would be willing to cut their incomes over $400,000 by 50%. They would still be rich. No doubt. But rich just isn't good enough for the richest one percent. THEY WANT AS MUCH AS THEY CAN POSSIBLY GET. ALWAYS AS MUCH AS THEY CAN POSSIBLY LAY THEIR DISGUSTING GREEDY MEAT HOOKS ON.

Great question though.

[-] 0 points by MASTERdBATER (15) 12 years ago

That would work for about 15 minutes until everyone making over 400k decides they would rather be a bum like you and get free hand outs too. Then you would have to drop your bracket to 200k and event would repeat until you find yourself next to everyone, refusing to work and spending their days waiting for their well deserved check to come in the mail.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

I would agree with MASTERdBATER, it's not gonna work like that. Bracket taxation is flowed, it's better to use continuous progressive formula and instead of depositing that money into somebody else's account just use it to build free sustainable solar powered shelters with automatically govern free food.

So, if you loose your job/home, you would have a safe place to go to while looking for another job/house/apartment.

[-] 0 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Math. Try it.

Next.

[-] 0 points by MASTERdBATER (15) 12 years ago

your math may be correct, but math will not speak for the will of the people. Why would anyone make over 400k when instead they could make 399k and receive 12% extra in "free money"?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

I didn't say that it would ever happen. That would take an act of God. I just answered the question.

[-] 0 points by MASTERdBATER (15) 12 years ago

His/her calculator could have done that, I was answering his real question.

[-] 0 points by REALamerican (241) 12 years ago

Probably not alot, seeing as your going for 99%. lol