Are you in the 1%

We should list actors and athletes to the 1%...NO?

What about Gloria Allred?

znovkovic wrote: We should list actors and athletes to the 1%...NO?

Yes. Actors, athletes, politicians, college administrators, college professors, college football coaches... they are all part of the 1 percent. But it's interesting, you don't hear the OWS folks talking about them and you don't hear the socialist on 285 Bound talking about them. All you hear is it's the bankers and the Wall Street firms. I wonder why that is?

They forget that they were screwed while being entertained? It doesn't hurt as much if you can watch a prolific master piece of directorship from Michael Moore?

Don't forget the lovely ladies on the VIEW they are entertaining are they not?

We should outlaw successful musicians also!

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

znovkovic wrote: We should list actors and athletes to the 1%...NO?

Yes. Actors, athletes, politicians, college administrators, college professors, college football coaches... they are all part of the 1 percent. But it's interesting, you don't hear the OWS folks talking about them and you don't hear the socialist on 285 Bound talking about them. All you hear is it's the bankers and the Wall Street firms. I wonder why that is?

Artists, actors, athletes and musicians were not bailed out by billions of our tax dollars. But if they make more then they should pay more in taxes.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

znovkovic wrote: We should list actors and athletes to the 1%...NO?

Yes. Actors, athletes, politicians, college administrators, college professors, college football coaches... they are all part of the 1 percent. But it's interesting, you don't hear the OWS folks talking about them and you don't hear the socialist on 285 Bound talking about them. All you hear is it's the bankers and the Wall Street firms. I wonder why that is?

They all are? This is simply factually wrong, though some may be over $340k or high net worths. To be clear, by the numbers, which I know gets in the way of the witch hunt, I would bet that everyone one of the groups you mentioned have more people making less than $100k, which is still pretty lofty in most places, but your right once you earn it. Most people who have not looked at actual data do not understand the data they are talking about - would it surprise many to know that on average architects make LESS than carpenters, but somehow George on Seinfeld never pretended he was a carpenter. It makes sense because a carpenter usually has more diverse skills and mechanical skills, but most just don't assume it. I have worked as both and it makes sense from the inside, but most live on the outside. I think I have family or friends in every field you mentioned, most are surviving, I think one or none are making over $100k or have any significant amount of accumulated wealth. I also have family that are way into the 1%, they all did that as small business owners using simple trade to accumulate wealth (they convinced each customer/client to part with some small amount of $ till they were rich), many started pretty poor.

When people talk about people that take advantage of others, they talk about pick pockets and petty thieves and leave parents that are not desperate and still easily taking their neighbor's tax money without asking or thanking to educate their children. If we are worked up about the OWS and other people not bitching about some minor players (your coaches, etc), why not talk about our neighbors who are not poor but happy to take your wealth via taxes cause it simply funnels more money to their family, regardless of the moral implication, and sometimes they are even Republicans doing this and then posting about financial responsibilities of others on the web, pictures of Reagan, Wayne and all (this comment is not for those that have these pictures, but also paid their full share for their lives and their kids)

Remember also that this is the USA, we don't save much, so high income does not mean rich, it just likely means you spend more and still have little left. And we all know when you have high income and spend most of it, who gets it...(1) the govt....(2) other people, so high incomes with high spending is what most people that believe in spreading wealth should want...or do they only want it through the gov? Many that I know that did 1 million dollar renovations 5-10 years ago lost both their job and the house they just spent a lifetime of income on within 3 years ($100k+ jobs never seem to last on average).

Bottom line, your statement just wrong, so I did not want it to influence people into more beliefs based on wrong things.

Photo-fish wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

znovkovic wrote: We should list actors and athletes to the 1%...NO?

Yes. Actors, athletes, politicians, college administrators, college professors, college football coaches... they are all part of the 1 percent. But it's interesting, you don't hear the OWS folks talking about them and you don't hear the socialist on 285 Bound talking about them. All you hear is it's the bankers and the Wall Street firms. I wonder why that is?

Artists, actors, athletes and musicians were not bailed out by billions of our tax dollars. But if they make more then they should pay more in taxes.

Technically yes they did as investors/banks at some point in time loaned money either to movie companies or record producers to fund a project and the same can be said about the other listed groups? No?

posteryoyo wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

znovkovic wrote: We should list actors and athletes to the 1%...NO?

Yes. Actors, athletes, politicians, college administrators, college professors, college football coaches... they are all part of the 1 percent. But it's interesting, you don't hear the OWS folks talking about them and you don't hear the socialist on 285 Bound talking about them. All you hear is it's the bankers and the Wall Street firms. I wonder why that is?

They all are? This is simply factually wrong, though some may be over $340k or high net worths. To be clear, by the numbers, which I know gets in the way of the witch hunt, I would bet that everyone one of the groups you mentioned have more people making less than $100k, which is still pretty lofty in most places, but your right once you earn it. Most people who have not looked at actual data do not understand the data they are talking about - would it surprise many to know that on average architects make LESS than carpenters, but somehow George on Seinfeld never pretended he was a carpenter. It makes sense because a carpenter usually has more diverse skills and mechanical skills, but most just don't assume it. I have worked as both and it makes sense from the inside, but most live on the outside. I think I have family or friends in every field you mentioned, most are surviving, I think one or none are making over $100k or have any significant amount of accumulated wealth. I also have family that are way into the 1%, they all did that as small business owners using simple trade to accumulate wealth (they convinced each customer/client to part with some small amount of $ till they were rich), many started pretty poor.

When people talk about people that take advantage of others, they talk about pick pockets and petty thieves and leave parents that are not desperate and still easily taking their neighbor's tax money without asking or thanking to educate their children. If we are worked up about the OWS and other people not bitching about some minor players (your coaches, etc), why not talk about our neighbors who are not poor but happy to take your wealth via taxes cause it simply funnels more money to their family, regardless of the moral implication, and sometimes they are even Republicans doing this and then posting about financial responsibilities of others on the web, pictures of Reagan, Wayne and all (this comment is not for those that have these pictures, but also paid their full share for their lives and their kids)

Remember also that this is the USA, we don't save much, so high income does not mean rich, it just likely means you spend more and still have little left. And we all know when you have high income and spend most of it, who gets it...(1) the govt....(2) other people, so high incomes with high spending is what most people that believe in spreading wealth should want...or do they only want it through the gov? Many that I know that did 1 million dollar renovations 5-10 years ago lost both their job and the house they just spent a lifetime of income on within 3 years ($100k+ jobs never seem to last on average).

Bottom line, your statement just wrong, so I did not want it to influence people into more beliefs based on wrong things.

I need to spend a bit more time reading your rebuttal and then maybe we can discuss the CBA's, as a start, for most sports and how they are written with television rights which in of itself will probably go back to the initial statment by Lib/Twin to be true?