How do you define the 1%?

[Anarchist420]

My dad used to be in the top 1% of income earners, but we fall far short of $6mn net worth, so he was never in the top 1% of wealth owners.

So... when someone refers to someone as "the 1%", then what do they mean exactly?

I hate how Al Gore's phony ass said Bush would tax the wealthiest 1% less, when there hasn't been a Federal wealth tax since John Adams was President. Gore was nothing more than a typical Wilsonian preying on the ignorance of the people.

 

[dmcowen674]

How do you define the 1%?

My dad used to be in the top 1% of income earners, but we fall far short of $6mn net worth, so he was never in the top 1% of wealth owners.

So... when someone refers to someone as "the 1%", then what do they mean exactly?

People that money is no longer a concern or object in their lives.

Just a few examples below:

Gasoline going to $5 has no bearing on them whatsoever for example other than to make them even more record profits.

Rent going up $65 a month more does not affect them in the least other than to pad the portfolio of the management company raising the prices and making more record profits for them.

Groceries going up has no affect, can still purchase whatever you feel like and have enough to pay bills.

Since your Dad made the 1%, you must be a 1%er unless you were disowned somehow.

 

[MrColin]

I believe it refers to the wealthiest 1% of the population, not the top 1% of earners. It is commonly believed that in the US these top 1% own 90% of basically everything.

EDIT: Correction, I just googled around and found that the richest 1% only own 42% of everything, but the top 5% own 69% of everything.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

I did research on this a while back.

1% is typically higher upper middle class. Based on the state, the median annual family income is typically $250-400 a year for the entire family, before taxes I think.

Typically they have over 1m USD in assets but less than 2m USD for the cut off mark.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I did research on this a while back.

1% is typically higher upper middle class. Based on the state, the median annual family income is typically $250-400 a year for the entire family, before taxes I think.

Typically they have over 1m USD in assets but less than 2m USD for the cut off mark.

So Dave hates anyone who's family income is over 250K. That explains a lot.

 

[CPA]

Whoever they are, they are hated for their success by many on this board and in this country. I base it on envy and jealousy.

 

[MrColin]

I did research on this a while back.

1% is typically higher upper middle class. Based on the state, the median annual family income is typically $250-400 a year for the entire family, before taxes I think.

Typically they have over 1m USD in assets but less than 2m USD for the cut off mark.

That makes no sense. Why would anyone need to classify or name a small demographic with between 1-2M in assets as the top 1% when there are people above that? WTF that totally defies logic. Unless by "research" you mean you surveyed a handful of 8 year olds, asking them how much income and wealth the top 1% has.

 

[postmortemIA]

Whoever they are, they are hated for their success by many on this board and in this country. I base it on envy and jealousy.

hated or not, I envy them for being able to stash the $ instead of govt having enough $ to fix the roads and such.

 

[waggy]

People that money is no longer a concern or object in their lives.

Just a few examples below:

Gasoline going to $5 has no bearing on them whatsoever for example other than to make them even more record profits.

Rent going up $65 a month more does not affect them in the least other than to pad the portfolio of the management company raising the prices and making more record profits for them.

Groceries going up has no affect, can still purchase whatever you feel like and have enough to pay bills.

Since your Dad made the 1%, you must be a 1%er unless you were disowned somehow.

that's not a good classification of them. I know a few people that gas/rent/etc going up is not going to effect and they are not rich. they make decent money and don't waste it either.

heh getting to the point 1% are people with jobs and not on any public aid lol

 

[dank69]

Whoever they are, they are hated for their success by many on this board and in this country. I base it on envy and jealousy.

Are you capable of posting without using a strawman? They aren't hated for their success. They are hated when they use that success to further exploit the less fortunate. So tell me what's wrong with that?

 

[XZeroII]

Are you capable of posting without using a strawman? They aren't hated for their success. They are hated when they use that success to further exploit the less fortunate. So tell me what's wrong with that?

Interesting that you bring up logical fallacies since you're using one yourself,
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/hasty-generalisation/

 

[MrColin]

heh getting to the point 1% are people with jobs and not on any public aid lol

no no no no, they are so wealthy that having a job would be a total waste of time. They get paid for what they own, not what they do. Unless by "people with jobs" you mean some executives that get paid in the tens of millions range and everybody under that aren't "people with jobs" but wage slaves and peons. Then your comment would start to make sense.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Are you capable of posting without using a strawman? They aren't hated for their success. They are hated when they use that success to further exploit the less fortunate. So tell me what's wrong with that?

Seems to me that there are those who just hate. We have some examples here, but I agree that a system which rewards few for harming many while requiring less merit for the latter is wrong. The consequences of that are far greater than taxes or income themselves, but hating their money is more popular than getting americans into well paying and secure jobs.

 

[Jhhnn]

1% is a euphemism, a reference to what really is a much smaller number of people at the top. It references people whose enormous incomes are not primarily derived from work, but from ownership, from collecting economic rents. Those rents are actually taxed at extremely low rates.

It references the L curve distribution of wealth & income in this country, actually a pareto curve near the top-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/why-does-inequality-make-the-rich-feel-poorer/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ople-dont-feel-very-rich/?partner=rss&emc=rss

As Rampell points out, the difference in income at the tippy top can't be represented well on a conventional linear graph, so a log graph is employed...

 

[the DRIZZLE]

1% is a euphemism, a reference to what really is a much smaller number of people at the top. It references people whose enormous incomes are not primarily derived from work, but from ownership, from collecting economic rents. Those rents are actually taxed at extremely low rates.

It references the L curve distribution of wealth & income in this country, actually a pareto curve near the top-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/why-does-inequality-make-the-rich-feel-poorer/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ople-dont-feel-very-rich/?partner=rss&emc=rss

As Rampell points out, the difference in income at the tippy top can't be represented well on a conventional linear graph, so a log graph is employed...

It's not a euphemism, do you know what euphemism means?. It's an incorrect term that misses the point that you just described. Aside from being statistically wrong (as you noted the people we are talking about would accurately be described as 0.1%), it's also not a particularly useful way of looking at the issue.

If the issue is that the mega rich are gaming the system, does it matter if they are the 0.1%? 1%, or 2%?. An since it's clearly not everyone in that group who isn't playing fair, why attack people just because they fall into that demographic. It's really a lousy term for a variety of reasons.

 

[Anarchist420]

As Rampell points out, the difference in income at the tippy top can't be represented well on a conventional linear graph, so a log graph is employed...

Thank you... that was probably the most satisfactory answer It made more sense than any other anyway.

A problem I have with govt is that it must make people rich who shouldn't be while keeping others less wealthy than they would be in a free society. However, it's hard to have a distaste for those who mooch off the govt either way because we're all kind of forced to... it's just a matter of how much. Bankers are probably the biggest beneficiaries of the govt since it gave them their very own printing press and a monopoly... and ironically, they comprise a large portion of "the 1%" I'm guessing wealth inequality would be the same here if the American citizenry of today was not governed tomorrow. Some would be poorer while others would be wealthier, but the distribution would probably be about the same, maybe with a maximum of a 15% reduction in inequality.

 

[a777pilot]

Who are the 1%ers? Who cares? I don't. It's a distraction from the real issues of this campaign....the economy and jobs.

It's a fact of numbers. As soon as you put two or more numbers or things together to compare, one is going to be bigger and one smaller. One older and one younger. One taller and one shorter. The list goes on. It is a distraction. One might as well debate the old question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Exterous]

I believe it refers to the wealthiest 1% of the population, not the top 1% of earners. It is commonly believed that in the US these top 1% own 90% of basically everything.

It gets thrown around a lot and there seems to be little standard as to who it applies to. Unfortunately most seem to focus on income and not wealth. The Economist, the Washington Post, NYT, Barrons are just a few that have defined it by income. This gives a very skewed and distorted impression of the 1% Why? Because the 1% of income earners starts around $350-400k (even then there are disagreements). While this is a lot of money, how far it goes greatly depends on location. In Alabama it will go far. If you are in SF, LA or NYC etc there is a very good chance that you are over leveraged and most of your wealth is tied up in home ownership. Basically those in the Top 1% of earners who make between $350k and $600k (A decent chunk of the 1%) are much more likely to closely resemble the wealth profiles of an Middle Class American. When people rile against the 1% they should really be riling against the 0.1% or so

It should be done by wealth. Then you would have a much more interesting view into America and you will have entrants into this group that did not have a 1% income job/cash inflow. (All you need to do is look at pro athletes to know that income does not equal wealth.) This however is much more difficult as its not just a couple of lines on a tax return. It gets even trickier when places start averaging them together to get a definition. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc with their billions get lumped in with someone who 'just' has a couple of million which will greatly skew the numbers. No one seems all that interested in indepth investigation into the top 1% of wealth so you'll find their entry range reported as anywhere between $1.2 million and $9million wealth with an average between $10m and $14m

I did just come across this article and it seems very interesting and relevant but I haven't had time to dig into the data:
http://www.joshuakennon.com/how-much-money-does-it-take-to-be-in-the-top-1-of-wealth-and-net-worth-in-the-united-states/

 

[Braznor]

History has come full circle. America hates rich people!

 

[Matt1970]

1% is a euphemism, a reference to what really is a much smaller number of people at the top. It references people whose enormous incomes are not primarily derived from work, but from ownership, from collecting economic rents. Those rents are actually taxed at extremely low rates.

It references the L curve distribution of wealth & income in this country, actually a pareto curve near the top-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/why-does-inequality-make-the-rich-feel-poorer/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ople-dont-feel-very-rich/?partner=rss&emc=rss

As Rampell points out, the difference in income at the tippy top can't be represented well on a conventional linear graph, so a log graph is employed...

Dude, go to the hospital and get that bump on your head checked out will ya?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

History has come full circle. America hates rich people!

People have always hated the rich. The problem is now the rich have incentive to keep wages and hours down for everyone else, at least those who earn their wealth from boardroom associations.

 

[Exterous]

As Rampell points out, the difference in income at the tippy top can't be represented well on a conventional linear graph, so a log graph is employed...

While I agree on how it should be represented I disagree with her only stated conclusion as to why 'rich people don't feel very rich'. The only reason she points out that they don't feel rich is because their rich neighbors are so much richer. She completely leaves out that $172,000 a year could be eaten away by expenses leaving those top 10% earners with little to no wealth. When one has no wealth, is underwater in their house and a pile of expenses its easy to not feel rich

 

[Jhhnn]

It's not a euphemism, do you know what euphemism means?. It's an incorrect term that misses the point that you just described. Aside from being statistically wrong (as you noted the people we are talking about would accurately be described as 0.1%), it's also not a particularly useful way of looking at the issue.

If the issue is that the mega rich are gaming the system, does it matter if they are the 0.1%? 1%, or 2%?. An since it's clearly not everyone in that group who isn't playing fair, why attack people just because they fall into that demographic. It's really a lousy term for a variety of reasons.

It's a euphemism for the stinking rich, people who absolutely have no use for more money to support their lifestyles, yet getting more is their primary goal in life, and Republican policy is intended to further those ends.

If ol' Mitt, for example, lost money every year for the rest of his life, it wouldn't affect the way he lives in the slightest. Only catastrophic losses year after year would do that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Dude, go to the hospital and get that bump on your head checked out will ya?

Another zero content post of derision & denial.

If you have an argument, make it.

 

[Jhhnn]

While I agree on how it should be represented I disagree with her only stated conclusion as to why 'rich people don't feel very rich'. The only reason she points out that they don't feel rich is because their rich neighbors are so much richer. She completely leaves out that $172,000 a year could be eaten away by expenses leaving those top 10% earners with little to no wealth. When one has no wealth, is underwater in their house and a pile of expenses its easy to not feel rich

She references those further up the foodchain, at or in the vertical section of the curve.