We aren't the 99%
Posted by Christie Malry on October 24, 2011 at 9:16 am
While certain pundits have celebrated the "We are the 99%" slogan as brilliant, it is beset by problems:
- While it's mathematically true that the vast majority of the population, including me and most probably you, are indeed in the 99%, that doesn't automatically give legitimacy to what a small portion of that 99% does in the name of the rest of their brethren. The people who are defiling London's public spaces and poncing off the free wifi at Starbucks don't act in my name. While public opinion is hard to gauge, the comments on this article on the Guardian suggest that, even in a friendly newspaper, there are many - far more than 1% - that totally disapprove of the protests.
- There is no consistency over what constitutes the "1%". The term is bandied about to refer to banks, politicians, rich people or any corporation. Given that companies can't vote, it's silly to lump them into the 1%. Particularly as the companies are actually largely owned by us, through our pension funds.
- Even though they deny it was down to them, it was a major mistake to stand off against St Paul's, an action that has led to the cathedral's closure. St Paul's is the city's and the country's treasure. It's the landmark that controls so much of London's building development because its sightlines must be protected. Recently it was refurbished at a cost of some £40 million, to restore it to its past beauty. The protestors would be foolish to presume that the majority in London will tolerate this defilement of such a national institution for that long.
- The top 1% contributes a phenomenal amount to our nation's coffers. Looking at direct taxes alone, the richest 1% pays over 25% of all income tax. The current protests against the rich looks very much like an extreme case of sour grapes.
- The protestors don't know what they want, other than something "different". They won't be able to get beyond tiny amounts of support until they can define more clearly what they stand for. Their current ideas are totally incoherent and, frankly, bonkers. If they don't decide fast, they will lose all the momentum they have gained. At the moment they look like they may yet end up more inscrutable, more indecisive and more unaccountable than the politicians they want to replace.
- The basis of democracy is that it represents everyone. Democracy insists that minorities are protected, even those that did not vote for the ruling party. It's unethical to allow the majority, even an overwhelming majority, to gang up on a minority. And this remains true, even when talking about a minority for which many in the majority may have little sympathy (the super rich). In blaming all our society's woes on "the rich", there are ugly echoes of the hounding of Jews throughout history.
it's not the richest 1% that pay 25% of income tax, it's the highest earning 1%. sure, there will be a fair crossover - but income and wealth aren't the same thing and too many people think they are.
whilst completely agreeing with much of what you say (notably the fact that they don't seem to know who they are protesting about, or what they want done) i do think it *is* a great slogan. it's short and sweet and makes it's point. that's what slogans should do. of course, 'we are the 90%' would be just as effective... except, of course, none of the protestors are actually in the 90%. indeed, on a global scale quite a few of them probably aren't in the 99% either.
Yes, point taken. Although I suspect they\'re angrier about high earners than they are about low earners with high value illiquid assets. And, as you say, the correlation is probably pretty high.
aye. i'd actually love to see some data on the correlation and if/where the two groups diverge. it's probably, in the main, an age thing. a well paid 30-something (say, a top 5%-er) is poorer than the average home-owning pensioner - and can only dream of the wealth that a 50-year-old teacher has. partly, obviously, because the 30-something hasn't been accumulating wealth for very long.. but, in the modern world of overpriced houses and shit pensions, s/he might never actually be able to anyway.
Oh, dear. I'm going to have to disagree across the board, here. Can I take it paragraph by paragraph?
1) Was this paragraph ghost written by Col. Gaddaffi? He tried to discredit the validity of his country's protesters in a similar way. What worries me is that we clearly have polar views even on the word "Free". Without trivialising the most powerful word in our language, free WiFi is free WiFi. I don't see any sign saying "not on the grass". It only lasts for 2 hours anyway! http://starbucks.co.uk/coffeehouse/wireless-inter...
You surely don't expect 99% of all the UK to be there to justify the use of the we are "99%" claim, do you? The group is certainly taken entirely from the section of society that isn't the 1% they oppose, so by definition, surely they are the 99%. If you insist on being pedantic, in purely digital terms, if not the 1%, they must be the the 99%. QED.
2) Companies can't vote? Oh dear. Yes they can. The "P" in PLC means just that. Its just that the votes are cast by institutions at shareholder meetings, who would argue they act in our name too, the majority of private shareholders would feel they don't. You really can't be naive enough to think that any private shareholder can influence any such vote?
3) St Pauls was not closed by the protesters. It was closed by others with motives that time will make clear. Ask yourself who paid for that £40 Million upgrade? Again, I'm sure Gaddaffi wanted his sight-lines protecting, too.
4) Ah, the tyranny of selective statistical abstraction! Of course the 1% pay 25% of Income tax, and the 2% to 90% pay 35%. Your point being?
Look at it from the other perspective. If they pay 50% tax, they keep 50%. So the 1% have 25% more pure earnings than anyone else. And also bear in mind that doesn't count the assets, share options, dividends at low tax rates and every other perk. Such a divisive comment doesn't become someone of your qualification. Shame on you.
5) Now we come to the essence of my argument. I feel that Occupy should not be regarded as a movement, it is an expression of pain and a cry for justice. Imagine you walked up to a stranger and dropped a concrete slab on their feet - deliberately. Imagine you continued to do that, day in, day out. The poor victim may not know - or care - what you should be doing instead, as long as you stopped dropping stuff on their foot.
Except in this case, the pain isn't a one off, its a constant, impossible-to-tolerate pain. Occupy is just shouting "enough!"
6) Again, a silly statement. Democracy is government by the majority, not by everybody. To the best of my knowledge, we have never had a government here in the UK that represented more than 40% of the vote. In the last election turnout was an unusual 65% - higher than normal - and less than 40% of that figure voted Conservative! I reckon on that basis, ignoring the LD's, we have a government representing less than 20% of UK voters.
Hounding of the Jews? Highly emotive and again, does you no credit. I'd prefer to stay with a biblical comparison, seeing as this was about the Church of St Pauls and say its more like Jesus overturning the money lender's tables in the Temple.
But you'd probably disapprove of that as Our Lord didn't have a 99% majority to take that action, either.
Neil - re point (4), I don't think you've read the HMRC table correctly. You say the 2% to 90% pay 35% of income tax. That isn't correct. Looking at the HMRC table, for, say 2007/8, the last figures that are historic actuals rather than projections, the lowest earning 1% paid what is described by HMRC as a "negligible" percentage of tax. So in fact 2% to 90% pay 75% of all tax. The point Christie is making, and it's unarguably supported by the statistics, is that the highest earners in the UK pay far more than their "share" of income tax.
Now, clearly, you might want to argue that the top 1% highest earners should pay *even more* of the total amount contributed to the exchequer. But I think you need to argue from a position of understanding the historical actuals.
Hi, Helen,
Thanks for pointing out my underestimation of what the other percentage pays, which serves to re-enforce my argument, not take anything away from it. But don't you think taking one tax in isolation is hardly a measure of balance in society?
I would never support a higher rate. They tried that back in the 60's and it didn't work when it went to 99%. Even The Beatles wrote a song about it. A crazy and totally unfair law!
I don't want to be labelled anti-rich, left wing or even left of centre - I just object to the choking of our society by the 1% who are doing the choking and who have no right to occupy that position as they aren't there by merit. By default, that puts me in favour of the 99% being choked.
All I want to see is a fairer society that gives, maybe 10% more the opportunity to thrive and develop by a fairer banking and investment regime - maybe then they can provide jobs for the remainder who for reasons of intellect, personal choice or circumstance depend on others for employment.
That sounds reasonable. But it's not very clear:
- what you think banks and "the investment regime" (not scare quotes - I'm just not sure what you mean) should actually do to give 10% more opportunity to people (and there are things they could do - I'm just curious as to whether we agree on what those things are)
- who you identify as being the people in need of more opportunity. After all, I'm one of the people who, through personal choice, depends on others for employment. Does this include me in the population of people who need more opportunity? I doubt you think so.
Sorry for the ambiguity - I mean those small companies or start ups who are being starved of investment by the banks and City.
By providing responsible investment (how I shudder at that term now the co-op has hijacked it justify its incompetence) they will be able to grow sufficiently to employ those who need the work. The simple maths of 10% of businesses employing 5 new people each would make a huge difference.
You're right - I'm not denigrating those who choose to work for others. May good reasons for doing so - and many good reasons for not!
We're probably not too far apart on that, then. I think certain financial services institiutions should tighten their belts as we've all had, tolerate slightly lower margins and slightly lower earnings and bonuses at the top end of the payroll, in order to be able to take slightly more risk on small, local business. On the retail banking side, I'd like to see appropriate free banking arrangements for the lowest earners, including those on benefits; the loan shark organisations cashing in on the financial crisis are sickening.
However, I wouldn't see camping out in the Square Mile as being iikely to achieve any of these ends; it isn't even serving as a means for the protesters to articulate these ideas (if they share them). And having worked with the homeless in London, I think these protesters are detracting from the plight of people who really don't have a choice about sleeping out.
Describing income tax as "one tax in isolation" is pretty misleading. It's the most important single tax in our country's finances and is a good proxy for a host of other taxes.
So percentiles 2-90 pay three times as much tax as percentile 1? Er, there's 89 times more of them... you'd expect them to give much more than just three times. My point is that the rhetoric about "the 1%" giving "more" totally fails to recognise what they already give.
I don't accept that it's "silly" to describe democracy as respecting minorities. That's what democracy is: without respect for minorities you've just got mob rule.
And that means respect for the richest 1% as much as it means respect for the poorest 1%.
You can't really beat income tax for fairness. And ideally, you'd only ever tax each pound earned once, so you'd set income tax at a rate that enabled you to do away with certain indirect taxes.