15 ms·

I know that "1%" has a nice ring to it, but articles like this that mention "billionaires," "David Cameron," and the "Koch Brothers" aren't talking about 1-in-1

I know that "1%" has a nice ring to it, but articles like this that mention "billionaires," "David Cameron," and the "Koch Brothers" aren't talking about 1-in-100, they're talking about 1-in-100,000 or more. The 1% are your small town local doctor and lawyer, and they're not tax dodging on their (nonexistent) huge hordes of cash by moving them out of the country.

peteretep 11y ago
Cameron is quite definitely a 1%er, rather than a 0.1%er.
- kspaans 11y ago
  He even pays the same rate of tax as me! :D
- bitchypat 11y ago
  I think he means that technically the cutoff for the worldwide 1% of income is something like $35K/year.
- jimmytidey 11y ago
  Ambiguous in cash terms, certainly he's very rich and has millions of pounds. I'd assume he could live comfortably without ever having to work. More importantly, he is married to the daughter of a Baronet, and is the cousin of a Baronet too, so, socially, very firmly a 0.1%er.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    You don't need that many millions to live comfortably for the rest of your life. 1M is 10 years of 100,000 worth of net income which is more than you would get if you just reach the 1% mark in the UK. 10M say a modest lottery payout would give you a 100 years worth of 100,000 net yearly income and that's before you count in any potential ROI on that money if you decide to invest it rather than just stash it under the mattress. One of the other issues with money is that most of the people even those who are just in the 1% have to work to live, if you have access to sufficient finance to not worry about needing a job for the rest of your life one could argue that it's a problem. Even if you take out 100% of the money out of politics it's not going to be enough, because those who do not need to work to survive can invest 100% of their time into politics and driving their agenda forward while the rest lags behind. Now I'm not arguing that there is a solution for it, but what people tend to focus too much is on flat sums and income inequality which is almost futile. You might dislike some one who's making 160K a year but in most cases they are just like you if they do not work they'll find them selves on the street just as fast (and sometimes even faster than you). So for the most part I discount those who work directly for their compensation from the so called "1%" while you might think that some CEO getting payed 700,000 is some wallstreet arsehole, the oil worker in Nebraska might think the same about a developer in NYC earning 300K a year. True wealth allows people to focus on building dynasties and true power and if you want to focus on anything you might focus on that, that said we are 65 there's a good chance that we'll be considerably less supportive of things like inheritance tax when I'll have children and grandchildren to worry about.
- dubdubbub 11y ago
  Cameron is worth $50 million that we know about. Easily in the 0.1%.
  - Retric 11y ago
    He would need to make a little over 3% on that 50million to get into 0.1% in the US at 50 million. So, good odds, but not 100%. PS: These numbers get crazy. I know a couple that has a little under 20 million, but don't quite think they have made it based on who they hang out with. And honestly there goals don’t seem that ridiculous. ~200k each after inflation from a diversified and conservative portfolio which will just snowball takes a lot more now than you might think.
    - zo1 11y ago
      It's a whole lot more easier to "vilify" the rich when you don't personally know them, or haven't spoken with them on a non-trivial level. For all we know, there are people much lower down on the scale than the "0.1%" that are impacting politics on levels/scales we won't ever know of. Generals, drug-bosses, influential figures, nefarious individuals that wield power through back-room dealings, etc. In fact, there are probably legitimately influential people that wield more power than those much richer to them. One need only look at political "movements" to see that they're not always run by the rich and powerful. But rather, by those that can get large amounts of individual/normal people to agree with them and follow through. The oratorical figures, I'd say.
  - sievebrain 11y ago
    $50M, where did that come from? He has been saying (and publishing tax returns to show it) that he doesn't own any shares any more. And even when he did the amounts being talked about are in the hundreds of thousands range. Was there some new revelation in the past 24 hours that revealed Cameron to be a secret millionaire?
- walshemj 11y ago
  Do you mean Sam or Dave - Davesa pauper compared to Samcam
nieksand 11y ago
Were the Koch brothers actually implicated in the Panama papers? I have not read anything about that.
- nxzero 11y ago
  Currently there's no mention of the Koch family directly or indirectly in the Panama Papers.
  - infogulch 11y ago
    Interesting. However, they are mentioned by name in this article.
    - nxzero 11y ago
      Right, though the reference has nothing to do with the Panama Papers, but how they're impacting US politics; which is no secret.
  - vincent_s 11y ago
    Very few Americans have been mentioned in the Panama Papers which has given rise to all sorts of speculation [1]. [1] https://www.google.de/search?q=panama+papers+americans https://www.google.de/search?q=panama+papers+americans
    - nxzero 11y ago
      Simply following that link shows that hundreds of Americans are in the documents, many of whom have already been convicted of financial crimes.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- sbuttgereit 11y ago
  Not only were they not, the reports in the U.S. is that they've kept their money on the sidelines in the current U.S. Presidential contest (to date). I think this is part of the reason why claims of bias in reporting are legitimate. The Guardian has an editorial perspective and that doesn't get left behind on opinion pages. Why not implicate the Kochs in a story like this if you already have a set of opinions about them which would have them fit nicely here? You achieve guilt by association and you reinforce the notion that they are part of this evil cabal that you desire to lump them in with anyway... and you're more agreeable readers will cheer simply cheer you, rather than ask about any pesky facts that really tie them in with subject at hand.
gizmo 11y ago
The one percent in the US have a household income of at least $400,000. At this level of income it's not at all unusual to take advantage of tax minimizing strategies, which can include stashing money offshore. I agree that that billionaires are in a different class from the lawyer and surgeon. But then again, the difference between billionaires and centibillionaires is also immense, and we have to draw the line somewhere.
- tamana 11y ago
  Don't conflate lifetime wealth with one time annual income. Many more than 1% of the population earns top 1% income in some year. And don't conflate wage income, which is taxed at (marginal) 40+% right off the top, with investment income, which is low or never taxed due to scheming.
  - harryh 11y ago
    A substantial majority of economists agree that capital gains should have a lower tax rate than wage income. There are lots of good reasons for this (fake gains due to inflation, the fact that gains come over multiple years, interactions between corporate taxes and cap gains). It really doesn't have anything to do with scheming.
    - zanny 11y ago
      Does not change that the product of lower capital gains tax rates than income tax means those who earn absolutely less in a given year are paying a higher percentage of their income in tax than those who make absolutely (much) more. I think the fundamental problem is everyone talks about capital gains as some flat thing. It needs to be progressive like income tax (or at least in the US, way more progressive than current income tax) to have the positive effects economists want so long as the gains are distributed across many people than centralized in the hands of few. I'd say the same with waged income. In a theoretical better society we would even be taking income up to the happiness threshold and would progressively tax to an absolute income limit beyond that. And that is not just for bitternesses, sake, the problem we are going to face is that automation and the private ownership of automated production will produce literal money machines, where no human labor is required but goods are made and then sold which transfers money to you, that you then never spend back out again so long as you can own the whole supply chain. That situation is not sustainable - it is money flowing uni-directionally - and the consequences of uncapped income have precipitated how in the past five years we went from a little over 300 billionaires having more wealth than half the human population on Earth to just over 50 today.
jimmytidey 11y ago
In the UK, a one percenter earns £160k or above [1]. That's above the salary of any kind of doctor or consultant in the NHS, though they may earn more privately[2]. Very few doctors of any kind are likely to exceed this salary. Lawyers potentially could earn far in excess of £160k, though the vast majority would not.[3] I would guess that working in finance is the single mostly likely way of earning over £160k. I appreciate this may well be different in the US. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-f... [2] http://www.bma.org.uk/support-at-work/pay-fees-allowances/pay-scales/consultants-pay-england http://www.bma.org.uk/support-at-work/pay-fees-allowances/pa... [3] http://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/how-much-do-barristers-earn http://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/h...
- beeboop 11y ago
  OP is probably referring to US, where doctors are paid a lot more than most places and "laywers" in this context has the connotation of a partner at a law firm, not just some random person working in the law field who passed the bar exam. Partners in law firms are easily and often bringing in 500k+ every year. And doctors in the US are generally making a minimum of 200k, with the average being closer to 300-350 if I remember the stats I saw recently correctly.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    "Lawyers earned a median salary of $114,970 in 2014, according to the BLS. The best-paid lawyers earned more than $187,199, while the lowest-paid made less than $55,400" http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/lawyer/salary http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/lawyer/salary No idea whether everyone equates "lawyer" to "partner" in the US - certainly not the case in the UK where most qualified lawyers are not partners (except in very small firms).
    - beeboop 11y ago
      I am not sure why you just quoted stats for average lawyer salaries immediately after I just said the average lawyer is not what the OP is referring to. Lawyers does not automatically mean "partner" in the US, hence why I said "in this context". The OP is saying the majority of the 1% of income earners are things like doctors and lawyers. Not that "lawyers in general" are 1%ers.
pjc50 11y ago
How do we know, when it's secret? A few years back Cameron was condemning comedian Jimmy Carr and others for using Isle of Man tax structures. A big part of the Rangers football club collapse was their use of tax-avoidance structures to pay players that were ruled unlawful, and their subsequent inability to pay back taxes. Another part of the MPs' expenses scandal was abuse of the "primary residence" CGT exemption. Tax avoidance of varying levels and quasi-legitimacy seems to be quite widespread. Doctors and lawyers aren't doing as well as they used to, qv the junior doctors' strike. The real money in the UK is finance and property.
Retric 11y ago
1% is higher than most doctors, 410,000k per year is in the 99%. Past that these numbers grow fast 1.5 million per year does not hit 0.1%. However, a lot of people only hit those numbers occasionally. Win 2 million and your in the 0.1% for one year.
- criddell 11y ago
  It's about wealth, not income.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Top 1% wealth is over 8 million. Most doctors have nowhere near that.
simonebrunozzi 11y ago
I agree. Calling it 1% is actually very misleading.
hammock 11y ago
There are only 536 billionaires in the USA (according to Forbes). That would make it 1 in 230,000 households. For the UK (53 billionaires) this number is 1 in 500,000 households.
devishard 11y ago
Can we just admit that we all know what the term 1% is intended to mean in context and not have this silly semantic argument again? There are real, important issues here and being pedantic distracts from the discussion.
- fleitz 11y ago
  I always assumed it meant the 70 million richest people on the planet, you know those rich people with college degrees who have time to hang out in parks and complain about how the world no longer treats them any better than anyone else. It seems they want their taxes increased and that money sent to Bangladesh to make for less income inequality. Despite their college degrees I suspect they are innumerate and have a difficult time understanding meanings of words that don't favor their privileged position in the world.
  - turnip1979 11y ago
    Depends on the country. In many developed counties with social assistance, you will see hordes of unemployed people at the malls and at parks. Doing .. nothing. I'm all for social assistance but we are destroying the middle class.
    - fleitz 11y ago
      As far as I'm aware there are 7 billion people on the planet... Yes, the middle class in America is losing people to the upper class at a 2:1 ratio to the lower class, if this continues 66% of people will be in the upper classes in the next few generations.
    - tremon 11y ago
      you will see hordes of unemployed people at the malls and at parks. Doing .. nothing That's odd. I mostly see employed people at malls and in parks. How do you tell them apart? Or do you just assume that they're unemployed, because they're in a park, doing nothing?
    - devishard 11y ago
pessimizer 11y ago
Yes, they are. edit: The only reason for defensiveness about this on HN is that plenty of people here are in the 1% (I'm certainly in the 5%), and many of their friends and family. The reason doctors in the US make multiples of the income of doctors anywhere else in the world is because of high-dollar lobbying (for their own sake), and payoffs from pharma and medical device companies in return for support. If doctors in the US were reduced to the salaries of doctors in the UK, the bottom would fall out of the yacht business.
- topspin 11y ago
  The non-profit hospital racket is one of the most lucrative tax avoidance schemes in the US right now. Two thirds of US hospitals are "non-profit", and almost 100% of all new facilities are non-profit. Why Nonprofits are the Most Profitable Hospitals in the US: http://www.arbiternews.com/2014/04/08/why-nonprofits-are-the-most-profitable-hospitals-in-the-us/ http://www.arbiternews.com/2014/04/08/why-nonprofits-are-the...
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Insurance companies would lobby for a minimum dr salary so they could continue to remove most of it from the dr's pockets.
deelowe 11y ago
I get the feeling that this narrative is being told on purpose. The "1%" gets penalized for this stuff and the ".1%" just works around it.
- dnautics 11y ago
  Eventually, the punishments meted out to the 1% creep down brackets to the middle class. My dad was furious when he was subjected to the amt the first time, "I worked hard all my life for this??"
  - deelowe 11y ago
    Additionally, much of the middle class would be surprised by just how close to that "1%" they actually are. Especially when the discussion swings between net worth, gross income, and net income.
webXL 11y ago
Because it's the Guardian and this is how they gin up controversy ignore real solutions to societal problems. You wouldn't know it by reading articles like this, and certainly things can be a lot better and fairer, but over the last 50 years, every single ethnic group in this country is better off when you look at this Census report on median household income: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio.... Welfare programs have only expanded, and necessities like food and clothing have only gotten cheaper. I admit it isn't staggering advancement, but 50 years is a blip on the grand scheme of things. At the same time we might have just been lucky. But things aren't dire and many in the 1% have contributed in ways that have made us all better off. Real solutions to the tax dodging problem don't come by slinging emotionally charged statements like this around: "In so doing, you rob your own society of cash for hospitals, schools, roads…" Real solutions start by asking why wealthy people don't see value in publicly-financed goods and services, and if these people would have created more or fewer jobs under a more progressive tax regime, and if we want more jobs or more/better social services, and if we want new people in the top 1% every year. These are real tradeoffs that go beyond just negatively impacting the top 1%.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  Your argument boils down to the Republican sound-bite (referring to the poor): "But... but... they have refrigerators and air conditioners now!" Which is totally irrelevant to the main point being debated: it's not about wealth relative to the past, but about wealth relative to everyone else in the present. The reasons are simple: wealth buys political power, and political power is inevitably used to further concentrate wealth in the hands of those who have a lot of it.
  - webXL 11y ago
    Who cares who can use my argument? Is it not true? > it's not about wealth relative to the past, but about wealth relative to everyone else in the present. Who is debating that, exactly? I said things can be a lot better and fairer. But steady improvement over 50 years is nothing to be scoffed at and needs to be recognized and analyzed if we want to preserve those gains for those most marginalized. > wealth buys political power.... is inevitably used to further concentrate wealth What if this was shown not to be the case? Would you still be okay with the inequality? And if it is the case, how does this make you and me worse off in the absolute sense?
sievebrain 11y ago
The PM does not earn enough to be in the top 1%. Top 2%, yes, I think so.
itslennysfault 11y ago
Absolutely... the "1%" should continue to exist and be the countries rich. It's still quite rich, but not "greedily hoarding wealth well beyond what you could ever spend while others starve" rich. That said, I've noticed Bernie using the language: "The top one-tenth of 1 percent [of Americans] own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent."
mathattack 11y ago
Very true. Most people in the 0.1% to 1% still get hit by the AMT (higher taxes) every year. It's only the smallest group of elites that is able to exert undue influence.

peteretep 11y ago

Cameron is quite definitely a 1%er, rather than a 0.1%er.

kspaans 11y ago
He even pays the same rate of tax as me! :D
bitchypat 11y ago
I think he means that technically the cutoff for the worldwide 1% of income is something like $35K/year.
jimmytidey 11y ago
Ambiguous in cash terms, certainly he's very rich and has millions of pounds. I'd assume he could live comfortably without ever having to work. More importantly, he is married to the daughter of a Baronet, and is the cousin of a Baronet too, so, socially, very firmly a 0.1%er.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  You don't need that many millions to live comfortably for the rest of your life. 1M is 10 years of 100,000 worth of net income which is more than you would get if you just reach the 1% mark in the UK. 10M say a modest lottery payout would give you a 100 years worth of 100,000 net yearly income and that's before you count in any potential ROI on that money if you decide to invest it rather than just stash it under the mattress. One of the other issues with money is that most of the people even those who are just in the 1% have to work to live, if you have access to sufficient finance to not worry about needing a job for the rest of your life one could argue that it's a problem. Even if you take out 100% of the money out of politics it's not going to be enough, because those who do not need to work to survive can invest 100% of their time into politics and driving their agenda forward while the rest lags behind. Now I'm not arguing that there is a solution for it, but what people tend to focus too much is on flat sums and income inequality which is almost futile. You might dislike some one who's making 160K a year but in most cases they are just like you if they do not work they'll find them selves on the street just as fast (and sometimes even faster than you). So for the most part I discount those who work directly for their compensation from the so called "1%" while you might think that some CEO getting payed 700,000 is some wallstreet arsehole, the oil worker in Nebraska might think the same about a developer in NYC earning 300K a year. True wealth allows people to focus on building dynasties and true power and if you want to focus on anything you might focus on that, that said we are 65 there's a good chance that we'll be considerably less supportive of things like inheritance tax when I'll have children and grandchildren to worry about.
dubdubbub 11y ago
Cameron is worth $50 million that we know about. Easily in the 0.1%.
- Retric 11y ago
  He would need to make a little over 3% on that 50million to get into 0.1% in the US at 50 million. So, good odds, but not 100%. PS: These numbers get crazy. I know a couple that has a little under 20 million, but don't quite think they have made it based on who they hang out with. And honestly there goals don’t seem that ridiculous. ~200k each after inflation from a diversified and conservative portfolio which will just snowball takes a lot more now than you might think.
  - zo1 11y ago
    It's a whole lot more easier to "vilify" the rich when you don't personally know them, or haven't spoken with them on a non-trivial level. For all we know, there are people much lower down on the scale than the "0.1%" that are impacting politics on levels/scales we won't ever know of. Generals, drug-bosses, influential figures, nefarious individuals that wield power through back-room dealings, etc. In fact, there are probably legitimately influential people that wield more power than those much richer to them. One need only look at political "movements" to see that they're not always run by the rich and powerful. But rather, by those that can get large amounts of individual/normal people to agree with them and follow through. The oratorical figures, I'd say.
- sievebrain 11y ago
  $50M, where did that come from? He has been saying (and publishing tax returns to show it) that he doesn't own any shares any more. And even when he did the amounts being talked about are in the hundreds of thousands range. Was there some new revelation in the past 24 hours that revealed Cameron to be a secret millionaire?
walshemj 11y ago
Do you mean Sam or Dave - Davesa pauper compared to Samcam

nieksand 11y ago

Were the Koch brothers actually implicated in the Panama papers? I have not read anything about that.

nxzero 11y ago
Currently there's no mention of the Koch family directly or indirectly in the Panama Papers.
- infogulch 11y ago
  Interesting. However, they are mentioned by name in this article.
  - nxzero 11y ago
    Right, though the reference has nothing to do with the Panama Papers, but how they're impacting US politics; which is no secret.
- vincent_s 11y ago
  Very few Americans have been mentioned in the Panama Papers which has given rise to all sorts of speculation [1]. [1] https://www.google.de/search?q=panama+papers+americans https://www.google.de/search?q=panama+papers+americans
  - nxzero 11y ago
    Simply following that link shows that hundreds of Americans are in the documents, many of whom have already been convicted of financial crimes.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sbuttgereit 11y ago
Not only were they not, the reports in the U.S. is that they've kept their money on the sidelines in the current U.S. Presidential contest (to date). I think this is part of the reason why claims of bias in reporting are legitimate. The Guardian has an editorial perspective and that doesn't get left behind on opinion pages. Why not implicate the Kochs in a story like this if you already have a set of opinions about them which would have them fit nicely here? You achieve guilt by association and you reinforce the notion that they are part of this evil cabal that you desire to lump them in with anyway... and you're more agreeable readers will cheer simply cheer you, rather than ask about any pesky facts that really tie them in with subject at hand.

gizmo 11y ago

The one percent in the US have a household income of at least $400,000. At this level of income it's not at all unusual to take advantage of tax minimizing strategies, which can include stashing money offshore. I agree that that billionaires are in a different class from the lawyer and surgeon. But then again, the difference between billionaires and centibillionaires is also immense, and we have to draw the line somewhere.

tamana 11y ago
Don't conflate lifetime wealth with one time annual income. Many more than 1% of the population earns top 1% income in some year. And don't conflate wage income, which is taxed at (marginal) 40+% right off the top, with investment income, which is low or never taxed due to scheming.
- harryh 11y ago
  A substantial majority of economists agree that capital gains should have a lower tax rate than wage income. There are lots of good reasons for this (fake gains due to inflation, the fact that gains come over multiple years, interactions between corporate taxes and cap gains). It really doesn't have anything to do with scheming.
  - zanny 11y ago
    Does not change that the product of lower capital gains tax rates than income tax means those who earn absolutely less in a given year are paying a higher percentage of their income in tax than those who make absolutely (much) more. I think the fundamental problem is everyone talks about capital gains as some flat thing. It needs to be progressive like income tax (or at least in the US, way more progressive than current income tax) to have the positive effects economists want so long as the gains are distributed across many people than centralized in the hands of few. I'd say the same with waged income. In a theoretical better society we would even be taking income up to the happiness threshold and would progressively tax to an absolute income limit beyond that. And that is not just for bitternesses, sake, the problem we are going to face is that automation and the private ownership of automated production will produce literal money machines, where no human labor is required but goods are made and then sold which transfers money to you, that you then never spend back out again so long as you can own the whole supply chain. That situation is not sustainable - it is money flowing uni-directionally - and the consequences of uncapped income have precipitated how in the past five years we went from a little over 300 billionaires having more wealth than half the human population on Earth to just over 50 today.

jimmytidey 11y ago

In the UK, a one percenter earns £160k or above [1]. That's above the salary of any kind of doctor or consultant in the NHS, though they may earn more privately[2]. Very few doctors of any kind are likely to exceed this salary. Lawyers potentially could earn far in excess of £160k, though the vast majority would not.[3] I would guess that working in finance is the single mostly likely way of earning over £160k. I appreciate this may well be different in the US. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-f... [2] http://www.bma.org.uk/support-at-work/pay-fees-allowances/pay-scales/consultants-pay-england http://www.bma.org.uk/support-at-work/pay-fees-allowances/pa... [3] http://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/how-much-do-barristers-earn http://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/h...

beeboop 11y ago
OP is probably referring to US, where doctors are paid a lot more than most places and "laywers" in this context has the connotation of a partner at a law firm, not just some random person working in the law field who passed the bar exam. Partners in law firms are easily and often bringing in 500k+ every year. And doctors in the US are generally making a minimum of 200k, with the average being closer to 300-350 if I remember the stats I saw recently correctly.
- arethuza 11y ago
  "Lawyers earned a median salary of $114,970 in 2014, according to the BLS. The best-paid lawyers earned more than $187,199, while the lowest-paid made less than $55,400" http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/lawyer/salary http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/lawyer/salary No idea whether everyone equates "lawyer" to "partner" in the US - certainly not the case in the UK where most qualified lawyers are not partners (except in very small firms).
  - beeboop 11y ago
    I am not sure why you just quoted stats for average lawyer salaries immediately after I just said the average lawyer is not what the OP is referring to. Lawyers does not automatically mean "partner" in the US, hence why I said "in this context". The OP is saying the majority of the 1% of income earners are things like doctors and lawyers. Not that "lawyers in general" are 1%ers.

pjc50 11y ago

How do we know, when it's secret? A few years back Cameron was condemning comedian Jimmy Carr and others for using Isle of Man tax structures. A big part of the Rangers football club collapse was their use of tax-avoidance structures to pay players that were ruled unlawful, and their subsequent inability to pay back taxes. Another part of the MPs' expenses scandal was abuse of the "primary residence" CGT exemption. Tax avoidance of varying levels and quasi-legitimacy seems to be quite widespread. Doctors and lawyers aren't doing as well as they used to, qv the junior doctors' strike. The real money in the UK is finance and property.

Retric 11y ago

1% is higher than most doctors, 410,000k per year is in the 99%. Past that these numbers grow fast 1.5 million per year does not hit 0.1%. However, a lot of people only hit those numbers occasionally. Win 2 million and your in the 0.1% for one year.

criddell 11y ago
It's about wealth, not income.
- Retric 11y ago
  Top 1% wealth is over 8 million. Most doctors have nowhere near that.

simonebrunozzi 11y ago

I agree. Calling it 1% is actually very misleading.

hammock 11y ago

There are only 536 billionaires in the USA (according to Forbes). That would make it 1 in 230,000 households. For the UK (53 billionaires) this number is 1 in 500,000 households.

devishard 11y ago

Can we just admit that we all know what the term 1% is intended to mean in context and not have this silly semantic argument again? There are real, important issues here and being pedantic distracts from the discussion.

fleitz 11y ago
I always assumed it meant the 70 million richest people on the planet, you know those rich people with college degrees who have time to hang out in parks and complain about how the world no longer treats them any better than anyone else. It seems they want their taxes increased and that money sent to Bangladesh to make for less income inequality. Despite their college degrees I suspect they are innumerate and have a difficult time understanding meanings of words that don't favor their privileged position in the world.
- turnip1979 11y ago
  Depends on the country. In many developed counties with social assistance, you will see hordes of unemployed people at the malls and at parks. Doing .. nothing. I'm all for social assistance but we are destroying the middle class.
  - fleitz 11y ago
    As far as I'm aware there are 7 billion people on the planet... Yes, the middle class in America is losing people to the upper class at a 2:1 ratio to the lower class, if this continues 66% of people will be in the upper classes in the next few generations.
  - tremon 11y ago
    you will see hordes of unemployed people at the malls and at parks. Doing .. nothing That's odd. I mostly see employed people at malls and in parks. How do you tell them apart? Or do you just assume that they're unemployed, because they're in a park, doing nothing?
  - devishard 11y ago

pessimizer 11y ago

Yes, they are. edit: The only reason for defensiveness about this on HN is that plenty of people here are in the 1% (I'm certainly in the 5%), and many of their friends and family. The reason doctors in the US make multiples of the income of doctors anywhere else in the world is because of high-dollar lobbying (for their own sake), and payoffs from pharma and medical device companies in return for support. If doctors in the US were reduced to the salaries of doctors in the UK, the bottom would fall out of the yacht business.

topspin 11y ago
The non-profit hospital racket is one of the most lucrative tax avoidance schemes in the US right now. Two thirds of US hospitals are "non-profit", and almost 100% of all new facilities are non-profit. Why Nonprofits are the Most Profitable Hospitals in the US: http://www.arbiternews.com/2014/04/08/why-nonprofits-are-the-most-profitable-hospitals-in-the-us/ http://www.arbiternews.com/2014/04/08/why-nonprofits-are-the...
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
Insurance companies would lobby for a minimum dr salary so they could continue to remove most of it from the dr's pockets.

deelowe 11y ago

I get the feeling that this narrative is being told on purpose. The "1%" gets penalized for this stuff and the ".1%" just works around it.

dnautics 11y ago
Eventually, the punishments meted out to the 1% creep down brackets to the middle class. My dad was furious when he was subjected to the amt the first time, "I worked hard all my life for this??"
- deelowe 11y ago
  Additionally, much of the middle class would be surprised by just how close to that "1%" they actually are. Especially when the discussion swings between net worth, gross income, and net income.

webXL 11y ago

Because it's the Guardian and this is how they gin up controversy ignore real solutions to societal problems. You wouldn't know it by reading articles like this, and certainly things can be a lot better and fairer, but over the last 50 years, every single ethnic group in this country is better off when you look at this Census report on median household income: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio.... Welfare programs have only expanded, and necessities like food and clothing have only gotten cheaper. I admit it isn't staggering advancement, but 50 years is a blip on the grand scheme of things. At the same time we might have just been lucky. But things aren't dire and many in the 1% have contributed in ways that have made us all better off. Real solutions to the tax dodging problem don't come by slinging emotionally charged statements like this around: "In so doing, you rob your own society of cash for hospitals, schools, roads…" Real solutions start by asking why wealthy people don't see value in publicly-financed goods and services, and if these people would have created more or fewer jobs under a more progressive tax regime, and if we want more jobs or more/better social services, and if we want new people in the top 1% every year. These are real tradeoffs that go beyond just negatively impacting the top 1%.

enraged_camel 11y ago
Your argument boils down to the Republican sound-bite (referring to the poor): "But... but... they have refrigerators and air conditioners now!" Which is totally irrelevant to the main point being debated: it's not about wealth relative to the past, but about wealth relative to everyone else in the present. The reasons are simple: wealth buys political power, and political power is inevitably used to further concentrate wealth in the hands of those who have a lot of it.
- webXL 11y ago
  Who cares who can use my argument? Is it not true? > it's not about wealth relative to the past, but about wealth relative to everyone else in the present. Who is debating that, exactly? I said things can be a lot better and fairer. But steady improvement over 50 years is nothing to be scoffed at and needs to be recognized and analyzed if we want to preserve those gains for those most marginalized. > wealth buys political power.... is inevitably used to further concentrate wealth What if this was shown not to be the case? Would you still be okay with the inequality? And if it is the case, how does this make you and me worse off in the absolute sense?

sievebrain 11y ago

The PM does not earn enough to be in the top 1%. Top 2%, yes, I think so.

itslennysfault 11y ago

Absolutely... the "1%" should continue to exist and be the countries rich. It's still quite rich, but not "greedily hoarding wealth well beyond what you could ever spend while others starve" rich. That said, I've noticed Bernie using the language: "The top one-tenth of 1 percent [of Americans] own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent."

mathattack 11y ago

Very true. Most people in the 0.1% to 1% still get hit by the AMT (higher taxes) every year. It's only the smallest group of elites that is able to exert undue influence.