Are you in the top 1%?

<p>The link in the OP was probably recycled, because I remember reading such in the Spring at an airport, well before the July 2011 posting date. But anyway, here are 2 other sources that reported top 1 % as,</p>

<p>Minimum AGI: $380,354 (2010) or,
Minimum Income: $516,633 (2010) or,
Minimum Net Worth: $8,232,000 (2007).</p>

<p>[How</a> Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make By Percentage? | Financial Samurai](<a href=“http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/]How”>How Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make By Percent?)</p>

<p>[How</a> the top 1 percent made its money in two charts - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-the-top-1-percent-made-its-money-in-two-charts/2011/10/11/gIQAXL4acL_blog.html]How”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-the-top-1-percent-made-its-money-in-two-charts/2011/10/11/gIQAXL4acL_blog.html)</p>

<p>I love it— the numbers keep going higher and higher! That explains a few things to me. Thanks for this thread.</p>

<p>So what IS the minimum to be in the 1%?
$500k income and $8mm in assets?
Are these US only numbers??</p>

<p>The regional differences in COL in the USA alone are still a big factor, to me, as well…</p>

<p>All US numbers.</p>

<p>2 casual observations that led me to doubt merely $ 1.2 M in assets can reach top 1 % ----- the number of million-dollar homes in Silicon Valley and the number of Lamborghini’s roaming along the Newport Coast. :-)</p>

<p>Does it change anyone’s mind about raising taxes on the 1% if you don’t fit the definition? if it is only taxing the uber-wealthy who have accumulated wealth? and that isn’t you :)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sewhappy, I hear what you are saying. It wouldn’t surprise me if the politicians are willing to sell the faintly wealthy out to try to spare the truly rich. But I don’t really think the angry villagers with pitchforks are after the people you are talking about. My impression is that the OWS crowd is mad at the banks, mega-corporations, and greedy CEOs. </p>

<p>If you are saying you don’t trust the politicians and the uber-wealthy, then I’d say you have something in common with the 99%.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Perceptive question, alh. I ask myself this question and my answer is that it would bother me to increase taxes on the truly wealthy even if it didn’t mean my own taxes would rise. I don’t think taxing those at the top will help solve our problems. For one thing, the truly wealthy would just flee to other lands or sink their wealth into clever shelters. </p>

<p>But mostly, I don’t subscribe to the idea that the very wealthy take money away from me. That’s just not how I’m wired. I don’t think there’s a finite amount of wealth sloshing around our society and the winners among us take from the less successful. I think that’s a very juvenile and rather unsavory perspective to take on economics. But it resonates with a heck of a lot of people. It has led to revolutions and the slaughter of a lot of people. It’s a pretty serious human tendency – coveting the other guy’s wealth.</p>

<p>sewhappy: what policies would you support to fix the economy? specifically? examples?</p>

<p>Sewhappy,
I hear you. I, too, see that overall growth as well as individual pluck are very very crucial.</p>

<p>But:

  1. is it a good idea to have flat or regressive taxes??? Should the guys making less (but still working hard, too) have to pay the same percentage of taxes, i.e. start to give up dollars pretty early in their game?
  2. Do not be guilty of what you accuse others of: assuming you know what the “whiners” are actually doing and thinking, what their lives are like. You know you hate it when people say all wealthy people are alike and are … (fill in the blank)- smile!
  3. I sense that, while there are soup grapes and whiners wanting a safety net and handouts and some re-distribution “right now!”, there are MANY who are merely envious of others’ LUCK and OPPORTUNITIES (to work hard, save, make the economy grow, etc.). And there are others that feel that the system is stacked against them as they try to live responsibly and productively.
    These are not equivalents.</p>

<p>You know, life is much harder than it was say 5 or 10 years for everyone, relatively speaking. We as a society do have to figure this out for each other, at all levels.</p>

<h1>81</h1>

<p>

</p>

<p>I really really liked this post from yesterday. I was probably raised by the most manners conscious segment of society on the planet (well at least in this country) and I think the time for manners is long past. I don’t really see telling people who have lost jobs, homes, can’t feed their kids that they need to watch their manners. Or telling that to anyone who advocates for those people, regardless of where the advocates fall on the income chart.</p>

<p>“who is going to pay for the clean up?”</p>

<p>As far as I can tell, some are advocating for those who have the least to pay for the clean up. Beyond any idea of fairness, is this even possible/practical?</p>

<p>I don’t have answers. I do think the Occupiers are foolish and wasting their time and our time spouting mostly nonsense. But we are a free country and fools can make fools of themselves. It’s a good thing. (Glad I don’t live near the Occupations, though)</p>

<p>If we want to assign blame I’d look to two developments in our economy in the last thirty years or so. The first was the proliferation of the 401K which brought a ton of people into stocks who otherwise would not have entered the market. This fueled the stock boom. The other thing was the whole notion that everyone in America should own a home. There is a lot of attempts to assign this with certain administrations but if you look at it closely the whole push to keep interest rates artificially low and pressure and motivate the lending for mortgages to segments of the society that were bad credit risks started in earnest under a president that I worked for and voted for twice. It’s ridiculous, though, to try to pin that whole fiasco on a political party. Both parties embraced the policy. And for a long time, it enriched everyone. Houses got built. Houses appreciated. Everyone got houses. It was a huge big wonderful party. </p>

<p>I remember riding on the school bus to help chaperone a field trip for my daughter back in elementary and sitting next to a mom in my neighborhood who had just bought a matching escalade to go with her husband’s escalade. Her husband was a computer programmer at a car manufacturer. They were solidly middle class. I expressed admiration for such nice cars and said something like I wish we could afford those types of cars and she looked at me like I was stupid and said: “You just get your house to buy your car for you, silly!”</p>

<p>Everyone was running around high as a kite on imaginary wealth that went up in a poof of smoke. It never really existed. We just thought it did. And that whole sad debacle started as a well-intentioned idea that was suppose to help people. Yes, some financial people learned to cut profits on the whole mess – but they are not really the culprits. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, there is no malevolent evil culprit in all of this. Except ourselves. Those who didn’t go crazy, trade up, buy stuff of home equity are probably going to be the types who have also managed their careers fairly prudently. They will be okay. This sad perfect storm of economic malaise is hurting most those who were not necessarily vulnerable, just gullible.</p>

<p>And yeah, in general I’d point the finger at our education system, which inculcates kids in lots of la-la land social ideas and does not teach many of them to actually think.</p>

<h1>210 "Yes, some financial people learned to cut profits on the whole mess – but they are not really the culprits. "</h1>

<p>If you truly believe the above statement, you are lacking the most basic understanding of how the financial crash came about - you need to do some very basic reading about the relationship between the financial firms and the housing crash - derivatives, cds, etc.</p>

<p>sewhappy: I agree about 401Ks and houses. However, I think the idea of 401Ks is a malevolent idea that should never have been sold to the public. I think the idea you could buy a house without 20% down and a 30 year fixed rate mortgage was an evil idea. I think the people who dreamed all this up were very very evil. I think they should be held accountable and fix the economy. Because as far as I can tell, they are the ones who messed it up.</p>

<p>I didn’t get involved with stocks or real estate wheeling and dealing, just because I am a crazy conspiracy theorist sort of gal. I pretty much always expect everything to fall apart, maybe because of all that time spent practicing hiding under desks in elementary school. I absolutely don’t blame the saner folks who trusted their financial planners and the big guys & girls at the banks and wall street.</p>

<p>But regardless who is to blame -
How does it get fixed???
We have to move forward for our children.</p>

<p>parent1986,</p>

<p>My point is that the fundamental problem was extending mortgage financing to segments of the population who should not have been buying homes. This was brought about by government policies. Are you familiar with “redlining”? </p>

<p>If your government says the taxpayers will guarantee risky loans then why on Earth would the investment community not make hay out of the situation?</p>

<p>The fault is with the government, congress particularly, imo. And it is not about them failing to regulate the private sector well enough. The problem was that the government meddled in inappropriate ways with the market by trying to social engineer people into an ownership society.</p>

<p>It feels more satisfying to blame “Wall St” though. And I do believe there is some bigotry going on with that approach that is really unspeakably ugly. But not a good topic for here.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Some, especially in the homeschooling movement, think the whole purpose of public education was to benefit the military industrial complex by training docile factory workers and soldiers. When the population refuses to question authority because those in charge must be right, that sort of proves that point imho. But it does seem to produce amazingly respectful masses.</p>

<p>ymmv</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>or someone meddled in the government to create a situation where some people were taken advantage of to create a lot of wealth for the same people who meddled in the government originally </p>

<p>maybe?</p>

<p>alh,</p>

<p>At the moment, I’m just worried the situation is going to lead to some very ugly things in America and ultimately cause more suffering. I don’t think inflaming people, telling them they are victims and that a certain segment of society hurt them is at all helpful and it could be a really terrible, terrible thing.</p>

<p>So right now, I just hope America is resilient enough to not veer in any extreme directions and that we don’t witch hunt.</p>

<p>Over time, I think we must improve education. Overlaying all of this mess, of course, is the globalization wrought by the advances in technology. We have to compete differently and better than we are doing right now.</p>

<p>I’m ultimately optimistic. I look at the second generation immigrant kids in my daughter’s high school and I think we will be okay. We attract the talent and drive that is going to move us through this. </p>

<p>That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!</p>

<p>^^how are we fixing it? how will we compete differently? what do you see these immigrant kids doing that fixes the economy for our own kids?</p>

<p>okay I’m going to stop posting on this thread now, so the smart people will come back and post some more links and ask some questions that, when the rest of us can ever figure out the answers, explain it all.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m really trying not to go there but yes, I think it is probable. I’m trying not to get that cynical.</p>

<p>SH, prosperity brings in the votes!</p>

<p>Look, I have a story, too. Maybe it seems obvious to all, even me, now, but this was back in 1996.
A gal in her late 20’s was helping me out a few hours a week with my kids. It was not anything near a full-time job, but she had good hours, free time, and seemed happy with the arrangement, and was free to fill in her other hours with other work. Meanwhile her mother was pushing for her to work full time, as a nanny, at a store, whatever, and she was having no success finding something like that due to her lack of experience and level of education.</p>

<p>The next thing I knew, she, who was unable to get a job at a shop or as a full-time nanny and barely had a HS degree, announced to me was starting to work full-time for the city government. She proudly declared that she would be getting full benefits, too.
I was in awe that she could achieve this, and wondered how much she would contribute.</p>

<p>While I OF COURSE believe that everyone has a “right” to better themselves via hard work, training, education, savings, it is a quandary as to what is fair and what is not.
This gal was not able to attain such a great arrangement except the way she did. (The actual job was something very low on the totem pole and clerical.)</p>

<p>The Mayor was certainly feathering his nest, as they say. During his multiple terms, he increased the numbers employed by the city by leaps and bounds- this was possible as we were experiencing a very big boom. This was in effect also a kind of welfare or workfare. It stimulated growth privately and benefited society in the sense that she was able to spend more, even save, provide a better home for her children, etc. etc. However, this was done with tax-payers’ dollars- is this a good idea? Was she really productive? AND, it has been MIGHTY HARD for the city to lay off any of these folks- each new mayor promises to cut back, but then gets scared off by the potential for depressing the local economy ST and losing future votes, so we are stuck with a bloated budget even in downtimes (and boy are we hurting now, need I say more…)</p>

<p>I just do not know, either.</p>

<p>Turns out she has been really quite successful and now is one the top honchos at the local DMV! So- go figure!! These things can be very very positive for the individual, just as amassing wealth can be at the top end, but are these things working well as a “system”? for a healthy economy LONG TERM??</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sadly, there are many people who did none of these things who are not okay, and who are in for some hard years ahead. Including our next generation. Which is why they are marching.</p>

<p>^^yes yes yes</p>

<p>Since 2008 it seems anyone could lose their employment at any time. And they could have health costs bankrupt them even with insurance. </p>

<p>Our next generation has done nothing to deserve all this.</p>

<p>people who are in good economic shape now are pretty much just lucky in one way or another</p>