How to Cover the One Percent

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/01/14/how-to-cover-the-one-percent/

by xoher • 11 years ago

52 21 11 years ago

eliben• 10 years ago

Top 1% is (based on http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/) >$400k / year income. The billionaires this article talks about are in much, much higher brackets - maybe something like top %0.01

* P.S. based on another source [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/01/26/...], it's state-dependent and the highest I see is $678k in CT

rubidium2• 10 years ago

1% in journalism = the elite wealthy controlling banks, businesses and bureaucrats.

ideonexus• 10 years ago

Summary: The wealthy are using non-profits, charities, and foundations to push political agendas at the expense of taxpayers who are footing the bill because these institutions are also tax write-offs.

The article focuses on these organizations pushing advocacy, but I would also add that many "non-profit" organizations are actually incredibly profit-focused. An early introduction to this for me was growing up next to the Christian Broadcasting Network, a charitable organization that was raking in millions of dollars selling alternative medicines, opening five-star restaurants, hosting luxurious retreats, while also raking in donations from the poor people who would tune into the show seeking god's grace [1].

I see the same thing with Mega Churches, which are springing up like fast food franchises all over the DC-Metro region. These enormous buildings are raking in profits every Sunday while giving nothing back in taxes to pay for the roads, utilities, and emergency services the community provides for them. Taxpayers are losing $71 billion a year in revenues because of these for-profit franchises [2].

It isn't just religious institutions either. I've stopped giving blood to the American Red Cross in favor of donating it directly to my local hospital so they don't have to pay the overhead that comes with Red Cross blood [3]. The DC-Metro area is packed with "non-profits" that are really for-profit companies that pay out their profits directly to CEOs and board members while sending lobbyists to the National Mall to buy expensive lunches for our Representatives.

The article notes that the alternative is the European system of not providing tax-breaks for these organizations--which results in much fewer organizations. It's hard for me to accept that when I think of all the organizations I perceive as doing good in America, but maybe they aren't really doing good and are simply enjoying the good sentiments that come with the words "charity" and "non-profit?"

[1] http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20070327/NEWS/70327037...

[2] http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71...

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/07/business/all-about-blood-b...

lmm2• 10 years ago

The article notes that the alternative is the European system of not providing tax-breaks for these organizations--which results in much fewer organizations. It's hard for me to accept that when I think of all the organizations I perceive as doing good in America, but maybe they aren't really doing good and are simply enjoying the good sentiments that come with the words "charity" and "non-profit?"

You've got to ask how much of those sectors' income is going to organizations that are doing good, and how much is not. And remember that taxes are used for the public good, so the bar to be tax exempt should not be merely "is this organization doing good?" but rather "is this organization doing more good per dollar than is done with general taxation?"

barney54• 10 years ago

Is the government "doing good?" There is some good, but there is a case that non-profits such as the Red Cross, churches, food banks, are more accountable and do more good.

To me non-profits do far more good per dollar than the government does through general taxation. The biggest reason why is that non-profits have a much more defined scope and mission.

daveguy• 10 years ago

1) Non-Profit just means that profits can't go directly to shareholders / founders / investors (except in the form of a salary, which is a giant loophole). Essentially the profits must be re-invested in the company. They can be just as profit-seeking as a for-profit company and do so legally. They can grow just as rapidly.

2) I am pretty sure it is illegal for a non-profit (at least 501c3) to lobby the government. If they are lobbying then they are not the traditional non-profit. There is a different category of "non-profit" that allows lobbying, but the rules are different. I don't think donations are tax deductable to a lobbying-type non-profit and I think they have to pay some taxes.

Of course I am not a lawyer or accountant and it has been a few years since I was involved with a non-profit. If someone more knowledgeable about this can fix my misconceptions I would be grateful.

jimbokun• 10 years ago

This all just boils down to the general question of how you feel about the relationship between taxation and personal freedom, and the trade off between them.

Do you value the ability to personally decide where your money can do the most good, or would you rather delegate that responsibility to a powerful centralized authority?

Of course, many people (including some commenting here, apparently), are willing to cede important decisions about how to spend money to the government, because they are more afraid of their fellow citizens making poor decisions about how to spend or give away their money.

(Personally, it also reminds me that, despite the idiocy of the current Republican party, I still identify as "conservative" or maybe libertarian. I have personal beliefs and reasons for how I chose to give away my money, which I know are not necessarily shared by the majority. So I'm a bit taken aback at how cavalierly some are willing to cede those priorities to a central government.)

rubidium2• 10 years ago

"Ten years ago, for example, Google had a one-person lobbying shop in Washington; today, it has more than one hundred lobbyists working out of an office roughly the size of the White House. " ... to the tune of $16.8 Million dollars.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00002200...

I really like this article. It's a well-researched call to action for journalists to do real investigative work.

jnbiche2• 10 years ago

I'm ambivalent about this article. While I agree that the hidden power of mega-philanthropists is unsettling, the hidden players of our "public" government are orders of magnitude more powerful.

Frankly, differentiating between the "public" and "private" when discussing the ills of the %1 is pointless [1]. People at this level of society move in and out of the top levels of corporations and government all the time. They socialize together, intermarry, and share family bonds. Only together have big business and big government created this massive feedback loop that promotes inequality and loss of freedom for the common man.

It pains me to see my "right" and "left" leaning friends blame one side of the coin while completing ignoring the damage wrought by the flip side.

1. To be clear, the top 0.01% is what the article is really referring to, since the top %1 includes people like successful everyday doctors and lawyers. Perhaps a small cadre of powerful bureaucrats at this income level could be reasonably included in the top tier group the article refers to, but for the most part, these are people who are wealthy and influential in their local communities, but decidedly not actors at the level the article describes.

Retric• 10 years ago

Most doctors don't qualify into the top 1%.

Make 422,000$ / per year in the US? Your in the 99% ;)

jnbiche2• 10 years ago

Which is why I used the term "successful" ... lawyer or doctor. But perhaps I should have added, "specialist doctor".

But regardless of whether a successful doctor is in the top 1% or the top 1.2% is beside the point I am making. All these people are at a different tier of society than the societal elite this article describes. The only chance a doctor has of making it to that tier of society is too become a successful entrepreneur or politician. Practicing as a successful doctor isn't enough (even though practicing medicine may be far more useful to society).

laotzu2• 10 years ago

It pains me to see my "right" and "left" leaning friends blame one side of the coin while completing ignoring the damage wrought by the flip side.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and many others explicitly warned about this.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

-George Washington, Farewell Address

It's the age old strategy of divide et impera. It couldn't work if the masses weren't arguing futilely among themselves:

Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we've got to stay together. We've got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh's court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that's the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let us maintain unity.

-MLK, I've Been to the Mountaintop. Last speech given the night before assassination.

cmdrfred2• 10 years ago

I consider myself a skeptic. To me JFK was killed by a lone gunman, we went to the moon, and 911 wasn't a inside job. Then I read I've Been to the Mountaintop and wonder if there wasn't some involvement, at some level, from the US government (or those who control it) in MLK's death. It is already proven they attempted to discredit him, did they simply take that one step further?

Then I look at stuff like black lives matter. More white people were killed by police last year than black people. What did all the people murdered by police have in common? They were male, and they were poor. Are we sure this is a white/black problem and not a rich/poor one? Framing it in the black/white context seems to keep the for profit prisons humming along happily.

How to Cover the One Percent

Related Stories