Here's How Much You Have To Earn To Be In The 1 Percent In Each State

[Newell Steamer]

Owned so hard, you replied with something totally irrelevant.

Aren't you guys suppose to 'maintain frame' or some stupid meathead shit like that?

 

[Newell Steamer]

:facepalm:

 

[Zaap]

Way to be the first person in this thread to be juvenile enough to brag about their income on an anonymous internet forum


PS: You live in south carolina, so you are already starting out way behind. You'd have to pay me millions to live in that nightmare of a state lol.

Um...
Seems he was stating the starting number of 1% in his state and saying he's not...


Oh wait. Trevader.

NevermInd.

 

[boomerang]

Charlie Sheen thought he was "winning" too. It's OK though I get it. Your ego demands it.

 

[smackababy]

Is this single or household income?

 

[TreVader]

Is this single or household income?

Obviously single, household income of 450K in CA is def not 1%

 

[rudeguy]

Obviously single, household income of 450K in CA is def not 1%

don't you mean 99%

 

[TreVader]

don't you mean 99%

Good one. Quite witty


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html?_r=0


If you guys weren't so terrible at insulting people I might actually be embarrassed about that mistake. Thankfully rudeguy is here to make a buffoon of himself in order to take attention off me. Thanks rudeguy

 

[Newell Steamer]

Charlie Sheen thought he was "winning" too. It's OK though I get it. Your ego demands it.

There is no winning over you, you're a loser from the get go.

 

[Matt1970]

How did paying your fair share turn into wealth distribution?

No one wants the $500K (for example) plus 1%ers to only take $45K from their job and have the remaining $455K given to random Americans, illegals and ISIS.

It's about making sure the $500K plus 1%ers aren't dodging taxes and actually paying into the system that protects them.

Reality speaks for itself; http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/poor-pay-more-taxes-5660 - those that are making FAR less are paying more from their salaries in taxes that those who are making significantly far more.

But, again, it's the typical alarms that go off when asked to step up to the plate - socialism, communism, robbery, Obama is going to invade our homes, burdening the rich, blllaaarrrrggggghhh.

So making the rich pay more is because we need a bigger government then? Wealth inequality is always used as an excuse as to why we need to tax the rich more. We have a thread right here about it: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2417799

You are kidding yourself claiming it isn't about wealth redistribution. And there are plenty of people who want to go back to the good ole days of the 90% tax rates. Many on this very forum.

 

[CZroe]

I LOL'd at the OP. To destroy poverty, we obviously all need to be in the 1%!

 

[Vic]

Fry: Yeah, that'll show those poor!
Leela: Why are you cheering, Fry? You're not rich!
Fry: True. But someday I might be rich, and then people like me better watch their step!

 

[Zodiark1593]

I consider the point of poverty where you can barely afford essentials like housing, power, water, ramen, etc. If you can afford your wants too (cable + TV, latest iPhone, expensive clothing, toys, etc) you're certainly not living in poverty.

Of course, there's the class of people that use credit/loans to buy their expensive crap even though they couldn't afford it otherwise, but that class is called stupid.

 

[blastingcap]

Um...
Seems he was stating the starting number of 1% in his state and saying he's not...


Oh wait. Trevader.

NevermInd.

No kidding, it seems to happen on a routine basis; it's like he doesn't even read what people write and goes off on some ridiculous rant that ignores the facts.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Fry: Yeah, that'll show those poor!
Leela: Why are you cheering, Fry? You're not rich!
Fry: True. But someday I might be rich, and then people like me better watch their step!

The US sometimes appears to have a rather large number of people named Fry.

 

[CZroe]

The US sometimes appears to have a rather large number of people named Fry.

That one is a fictional cartoon character. First real person that comes to mind is a Brit (Stephen Fry). I can't even think of an American with that last name.

 

[Blanky]

There, the top 1 percent of earners make on average about 51 times as much as the bottom 99 percent of earners.

I don't get this. The bottom 99% in CT make $13k/year?

Ah, I guess on average, so that includes multi-millionaires. Still, the sentence is poorly worded, at the least it should refer to the average of the bottom 99% of earners, because a 99% earner in CT can make $500k, and the average to 1% is not making $25M.

Anyway, all this is because the rich own washington and also because many of the regular voting joes are so stupid as to fight for these rich's rights in ways that do not benefit them. Trickle down is a myth that still has yet to die for some.

 

[mikeymikec]

That one is a fictional cartoon character. First real person that comes to mind is a Brit (Stephen Fry). I can't even think of an American with that last name.

 

[cbrunny]

I wonder what the 1% is in Canada....

If you reported income of over $201,400 in 2010, you were part of the top 1% of Canadian income earners. This cohort earned 10.6% of Canada’s total reported income that year and paid 21.2% of all personal taxes. The top 10%, whose income was at least $81,200 that year, accounted for 55% of the total personal tax collected in 2010.

Source: http://business.financialpost.com/2013/03/21/299367/

Woah. Haha, that's very interesting. CBC reports an even lower number:

First, a look at the entry requirements. About 27.3 million Canadians were aged 15 and over in 2010. The vast majority of them (95 per cent) had some form of income. The top one per cent reported quite a bit of income.

Minimum income to be in the top ...

10% of income earners $80,400*
1% of income earners $191,100*
0.1% of income earners $685,000**
0.01% of income earners $2.57 million**
*National Household Survey (2011), **Statistics Canada T1FF (2010)
According to the 2011 survey, there were 272,600 Canadians who had incomes of at least $191,100 in 2010. That hefty number was the cutoff to make it into the top one per cent of Canadian income earners.

That $191,100 is just the minimum to squeak into the one per cent club. Most of the people in that category earned much more. The average income among the top one per cent was twice that — $381,300.

To put this level of income into perspective, that’s almost 10 times the average Canadian income of $38,700.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-are-canada-s-top-1-1.1703321

Craaaazy! I guess by that measure I'm just outside 10%-er

 

[Smoblikat]

Most people dont live in poverty.
There will always be a top 1%, its just a mathematical fact.
What would you like the government to do?
This isnt a real issue, most people are learning to live within their means.