I am not the 99%

Well, of course technically I am part of the 99% since it is derived from wealth, and I am not in the top 1%.  However, by this metric so is Eric Cantor, the Republican House Majority Leader with income at about two-thirds the cut-off and assets at just under the cut off  (about a million in disposable assets).  I would be surprised if anyone demonstrating in the streets would say that they and Eric Cantor are part of the same group.

So, if there is more to it than wealth what does "we are the 99%" mean?  As far as I can tell it means that those with lots of money (and really it isn't the top 1%, more like the top .1%, 300,000 people) largely make their money by not working but simply getting return on investments, are not taxed at a fair amount, and have too much influence in government.  The other side of this is that the rest of the people, those who do the work, are suffering because of this system and are helpless to fix it.  I would even go so far as to say that those claiming to be the 99% believe the entire system to be broken.

Well, in polling, 60% of Americans show some basic level of support for these notions.  I find this hardly surprising since I can't think of any time in history when people haven't felt like the rich are too rich and they should give some of their money to us.  The amazing thing is that 40% of Americans are not supportive of these concepts.  So, "We are the 99%" are, at the maximum, speaking for 60% of the population.

I am in the 60%.  I am broadly supportive of a small level of wealth redistribution from those who make their money from asset investment to society at large.  Mostly I think the income from investments should simply be classed as income, just like income from getting a paycheck.  At present this investment income is taxed at 10%, while wages at this level are taxed at 35% of income.  I would happy to split the difference and have income at the highest level be around 25% (this would increase taxes substantially since the very richest make their money from investments).  I am supportive of this redistribution because wealth disparity results in a number of social ills, from health to crime.  I think investment in infrastructure and social services improve the economy and actually pay for themselves over time.  The US economy has actually grown faster with higher tax rates.  I also think it a tragedy that there are people who don't have shelter, or food, or other necessities.

However, I don't the problem is that the rich are very, very rich.  If the richest are a hundred times richer than you or a billion times richer than you it doesn't really effect how rich you are, or your life in general.  I don't even think the problem is so much that there aren't enough taxes.  The US spends the fourth amount of money for education per child in the world.  It spends twice as much on health care per capita as anywhere else.  Property taxes are high.  The government has plenty of money, it just uses it less than efficiently.  If the US had a single payer health plan, invested in preventative social services, cut the military budget in half, increased the age for social security, invested in job creating infrastructure projects, and used best practices for education the US would be transformed into a competitive, healthy, vibrant and compassionate society.  All without raising a dime more in income.

So, I am not interested in fairness, I am interested in the health of society, and taking care of those in need. 

So, I have some sympathy for the "We are the 99%" people, but I also disagree with a fair amount of the movement.  I don't think Americans are really suffering.  I am in somewhere about the 40th percentile.  My household makes more money than average and we have more than average in assets.  We are in the upper end of the middle class (the thing that is supposed to have disappeared).  We have a beautiful house, two cars, health care, are safe, entertained, can travel the world, and buy amazing things.  As far as I am concerned we are filthy, stinking, grossly rich.  I am often actually embarrassed by how rich we are.  We are essentially an average working family (thanks honey) financially.  Such families, when adjusted for inflation, have doubled their incomes in the last thirty years.

You may say I am ignoring those at the bottom.  This is, in fact, a near universal when I raise these fact-based points with those supporting the "We are the 99%".  generally it is claimed that I don't know what it is like out there.  Of course, my not knowing what it is like is nonsense.  I have been hungry, without housing, without income or assets at times in my life.  At my poorest I was sleeping on a back porch and possessed a car I could not fill with fuel, $2.58 and half a loaf of bread.  That was coincidentally the summer I mentioned in my last post about being happy.  Also my last job was literally working with the poorest of the poor.  I know better what constitutes poverty in America than anyone I know.

Given my bona fides on poverty I can then go through the facts.  What I consider poverty is homelessness and hunger and health care.  If you have access to basic health care, your own shelter, clothes to deal with the weather, food on your plate, running potable water, heating, and electricity, in my eyes you are not poor.  This is a mild idea of what poverty looks like.  In the US .6% of the population is homeless at some time in a year.  That's not homeless throughout the year, that's at some time. This includes staying in a shelter.  Yep, you can be homeless in the USA while sleeping in a bed inside a heated building. 99.4% of the US population in a year will not experience a single night without shelter, running water, electricity, etc..  That's not suffering, that's flourishing.

It is reported quite widely that one in six families in America go hungry.  This is the actual list of what constitutes "hunger".  The worst of these groups (very low food security) is about 1% of the population, and of these the worst case described is one in five don't eat for a whole day in three months.  What 49 million go hungry actually means is that at some point about .6% of the population are hungry against their will sometimes.  Nobody starves in the USA.  Nobody.  This isn't poverty, that was college for me.

It is an absolute, ridiculous, shameful fact that one in six Americans do not have health insurance.  This kills people, about twenty thousand a year.  However, US law requires any emergency room in the country to treat anyone who walks through the door with a medical emergency.  If you have no health insurance and have a heart attack a hospital will spend $100,000 or more in treating you.  You will be saddled with that debt, and that is stupid and unnecessary, but you will probably live.  In the USA you will not die of intestinal parasites, malaria, tuberculosis, influenza, malnutrition, and almost all the major killers of people around the world.  Those without health insurance in the USA have better health care than more than a third of the world.

A statistic that is often brought up is that 14% of Americans are unemployed.  That's relatively bad for the USA.  Lots of people are worried, stressed, anxious and afraid as a result.  However, only a tiny fraction of these people face real poverty.  The "poor" in the USA generally do not face poverty.

From my point of view, this "broken system" has been remarkably successful in meeting the needs of its citizens.  If you had to roll the dice to randomly grow up in another country no rational American would take that risk.  Americans keep getting richer, safer, and healthier.  The "poverty line" in the USA is the average income of Portugal.  This system, with its corporate cronies, fixed election system, disparate wealth, rigged financial system, sociopathic financial traders (and it has all of that) has done well by the vast majority of Americans.

Then there is the complaint that the average people don't have a voice, are not participants in the system.  The government is elected by those people.  It is often said that money controls what people think, who is elected, and what then happens.  If you believe this you believe that the average person in the street is incapable of understanding what is going on, thinking for themselves, or making rational decisions at the ballot box.  If this is true, do you really want them deciding the fate of the country?  Those responsible for the government are those who elect them.

To be truthful there is one thing that really bothers me about the "We are the 99%" people.  It is not that they are protesting, it's not that they are angry (although I think that is a shame for them), it's not even that they are largely wrong, it's that they claim to speak for me.  They are not speaking for me, and it is a lie to say that they are.  It's as much a lie as to say that I am a part of Pat Robertson's "Silent Majority".  It is as much a lie as when any politician says anything starting with, "Americans believe..."

If you lie about what I believe you can fuck right off.