Want To Be The One Percent? This Is How Much You Need To Make

[dmcowen674]

9-22-2014

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/09/22/want-to-be-the-one-percent-this-is-how-much-you-need-to-make/

Want To Be The One Percent? This Is How Much You Need To Make…

While greedy “one percenters” have become a mythical creature to rally against, the answer to the question “How much do you need to make to be in the top 1%?” might surprise you — it’s not much.

According to Business Insider, who used the 2012 American Community Survey to estimate what income a household would need to earn in order to be in the top 1%, you don’t need to be a billionaire to make more than 99% of the population. You don’t need to be a multi-millionaire or even a millionaire, actually.


In fact, for the state of Illinois, you need to make a measly $413,000 in order to qualify for the nickname of “Moneybags.”


I say this realizing that I will personally never make that much in a year. Ever.

I don’t know about you, but I sure do feel bad for those poor schlubs making $400,000 a year.

 

[dmcowen674]

A lot more press railing against the 1%ers.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

already one lol

 

[Smoblikat]

already one lol

Good for you

See that? I didnt even get mad that some people are lucky enough to make more than me. The entire idea behind out monetary system is to accumulate as much wealth as possible. Thats literally the entire concept behind money, if you dont want people to have more than you, get rid of the monetary system all together and go back to bartering. But somthing tells me you dont want to do that, you probobly either want to make as much as the evil "1%" or you want to bring them down to your "99%" level. The liberal hypocrisy is overwhelming at times.

 

[Veliko]

Good for you

See that? I didnt even get mad that some people are lucky enough to make more than me. The entire idea behind out monetary system is to accumulate as much wealth as possible. Thats literally the entire concept behind money, if you dont want people to have more than you, get rid of the monetary system all together and go back to bartering. But somthing tells me you dont want to do that, you probobly either want to make as much as the evil "1%" or you want to bring them down to your "99%" level. The liberal hypocrisy is overwhelming at times.

Who are you talking to? This entire post is a complete mess.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Who are you talking to? This entire post is a complete mess.

He is responding to Dave, who once again displays his usual jealousy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A lot more press railing against the 1%ers.

Stop being so envious. The press isn't railing against people making 400K, they are feeding your obsession and making a lot more bank than that.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Stop being so envious. The press isn't railing against people making 400K, they are feeding your obsession and making a lot more bank than that.

Yep. That $400K is a family income too. That kind of income is a successful small business owner, a doctor, a pair of mid-level managers, etc. I'm sure it will come as no shock, but I'll go ahead and say it -- Dave has no concept of money.

 

[Paratus]

Who are you talking to? This entire post is a complete mess.

I thought so too. Basically everything he said in relation to money was wrong.

The concept behind money is to store work and a provide a universal proxy to trade that work for others work.

Our economic system is supposed to efficiently allocate resources to make more work to benefit our citizens. Wealth accumulation is the happy by product.

Work in this case is the effort required to provide food, water, shelter, clothing, etc.

 

[Tweak155]

I don't see what it matters... You don't need anywhere near that much to live well.

 

[Linux23]

3/4 of this forum is in the top 1%.

 

[Veliko]

He is responding to Dave, who once again displays his usual jealousy.

No, I think he was responding to a phantom person who was saying something very different to what the OP has said.

 

[Sonikku]

Actually living on 400k is very difficult. I read an article about it.

 

[Smoblikat]

No, I think he was responding to a phantom person who was saying something very different to what the OP has said.

Nope, I was responding to dave. nice try though!

 

[Attic]

Disposable income matters more. That's where the magnitude of the difference between classes really is shown.


Disposable income is what's getting crushed for poor and middle class.


For 1%, own assets stupid, don't work. 413k is the average of the 1% or gets you into the 1%? What's the average of the 1% to 0.9%, 0.9-0.8%...? Most the wealth is soaked up by the 1%, but most the wealth is soaked up by the 0.1%.

 

[dphantom]

I thought so too. Basically everything he said in relation to money was wrong.

The concept behind money is to store work and a provide a universal proxy to trade that work for others work.

Our economic system is supposed to efficiently allocate resources to make more work to benefit our citizens. Wealth accumulation is the happy by product.

Work in this case is the effort required to provide food, water, shelter, clothing, etc.

correct. basic economics.

 

[WackyDan]

Utter shit.

If you want to talk 1% then you need to talk about top 1% of wealth holders. How many millions dollars in wealth do you need to be in the 1% of wealth holders?

This focus on income is fucking bull shit. That $400k this year could drop to nothing next year when you are laid off. That $400k this year could drop to $200k when the company changes it's compensation plan and you make less commission next year.

Income in my world is considered temporary. It can come and go in a blink of an eye. To equate someone's income to being wealthy is stupid as you have no idea how long they have been earning at that level and how much longer they will be. It still takes years of working to take that level of income and convert it to sustainable wealth.

 

[Michael]

It takes a long time to become a 1%er. Most of the top motorcycle gangs require years of work to prove yourself and (according to rumor), some require that you murder someone. No idea why bat shit crazy Dave is so fascinated with the outlaw biker culture.

Michael

 

[ivwshane]

I'd wager to say that when most people are talking about the "1%" they are really referring to the .01%.

 

[Veliko]

I'd wager to say that when most people are talking about the "1%" they are really referring to the .01%.

This.

 

[TheSiege]

That website is fucking annoying

 

[Jhhnn]

Utter shit.

If you want to talk 1% then you need to talk about top 1% of wealth holders. How many millions dollars in wealth do you need to be in the 1% of wealth holders?

This focus on income is fucking bull shit. That $400k this year could drop to nothing next year when you are laid off. That $400k this year could drop to $200k when the company changes it's compensation plan and you make less commission next year.

Income in my world is considered temporary. It can come and go in a blink of an eye. To equate someone's income to being wealthy is stupid as you have no idea how long they have been earning at that level and how much longer they will be. It still takes years of working to take that level of income and convert it to sustainable wealth.

You were probably thinking of something like this-

In the U.S., the bottom 90% of the population own only 24.6% of all the privately held wealth, whereas in most of the developed world, the bottom 90% own around 40%; so, the degree of wealth-concentration in the U.S. is extraordinary (except for underdeveloped countries).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/us-is-now-the-most-unequa_b_4408647.html

Or this-

http://theunderstatement.com/post/3999331289/us-wealth-distribution-visualized

That doesn't look any better than the income picture.

It's important to recognize that at the top .01% of income that the vast majority of it is converted to additional assets rather than being spent in the world of everyday commerce. That effect is currently self reinforcing in a runaway train sort of way.