5 ms·

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

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.
    - arethuza 11y ago
      Apologies - I manage to misread your comment to be the opposite of what it actually is! [Edit: have an upvote]
    - JeremyNT 11y ago
      I believe you are mischaracterising what the OP said. Take a look at what was written: > The 1% are your small town local doctor and lawyer Which is, I believe, demonstrably untrue. "Small town" [x] will earn less than "big city" [x] in general, and there are few elite medical facilities or high powered law firms in small towns. This may seem like pedantry, but it's important to watch for this kind of language: the talking point that "small town doctors" are in the 1% is a powerful tool in trying to convince people that "the 1%" are just plain 'ol folk. You wouldn't want to tax good 'ol Atticus Finch, would you? I mean, he's barely getting by as it is! If OP had said "high performing doctors and lawyers" rather than "small town doctors and lawyers," that would be a much more accurate statement which would carry a very different connotation.
retube 11y ago
That defines a 1%er in the UK. On a global basis a much, much more modest income will put you in the 1%.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jeremysmyth 11y ago
  I would guess that a large proportion of people reading this comment have incomes in the top 1% globally. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615... Interestingly, this is less likely to be the case in wealth terms; many people globally with a lot of wealth (e.g. in agricultural land) have relatively low incomes, and the opposite is also true.
  - bzbarsky 11y ago
    Measuring wealth without adjusting for lifecycle effects (which is how it's usually done) is a meaningless exercise. A doctor four years into his or her career almost certainly has negative wealth, while any retiree not solely depending on a government pension presumably has some reasonable wealth.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Which misses the point. Being a 1%er isn't about some income, it's about economic agency. Doctors in the UK are well-paid professionals, but - like scientists, artists, academics, engineers, writers and other members of the middle class - their influence on policy is essentially zero. The biggest political change of the last few decades in the UK has been the absurd concentration of political power in the hands of speculators, bankers, property developers, creators of sweatshop industries, and a tiny number of "consultancies" that are hired to provide public services that used to be publicly owned. A few of the biggest IT corps - most obviously Google and MS - are on that privileged access list. No one else gets a say in policy. Voting is a sideshow. Policy is set in secret meetings which are unminuted and off-the-record even if they take place in government offices. The real meaning of "1%er" is anyone who can buy access to ministers - because it's been proven time and again that access is for sale - and influence policy for their own benefit. I know less about the US, but so far as I can tell the setup is very similar, but perhaps less indirect. You pay for your senator or congressman or president on the way up, and then they do what you want, more or less, while they're in power. There's a lot of show about caucuses and candidates and voting and flags are waved while pundits punditise. But the real decisions happen with money - euphemistically known as "favours" - on the table, and most voters are excluded from that process because they don't have the organisation, the social links, or - obviously - the money to take part. If you are not playing at that level you are not a 1%er. Having a six figure salary does nothing to change that, because ultimately your income stream is just as susceptible to the whims of the people who do play at that level as everyone else's.
cm2187 11y ago
That's very interesting, thanks for posting the HMRC link, I didn't know the data was that readily available. I tried plotting the difference 1999-2013 by percentile, first in absolute terms (£ difference): http://imgur.com/d7WYyxP http://imgur.com/d7WYyxP Which support that the wealthiest part of the population (upper middle class) benefited the most from the past 15 years. However if you do the same in relative terms: http://imgur.com/JVH4rFB http://imgur.com/JVH4rFB it is the lowest part of the income distribution who benefited the most, seeing their wages doubling. The very much upper end too. But not the middle class. Depending on how you look at it, it can be used as an argument both ways. Which is why I hate when people reduce something as complex as a distribution into one number. It's too easy to lie with statistics.
- iaskwhy 11y ago
  Imgur is blocked at the office but I'd like to add there must be a very strong effect of the personal allowance (you don't pay any tax up to 11k) increase when comparing changes over the last decade. There are exception if your income is in the top bracket.
  - cm2187 11y ago
    Logically I would expect the same though I do not know what was the tax system like in 1999, but it actually doesn't change much: http://imgur.com/JzUziar http://imgur.com/JzUziar The only key impact of taxes is to cancel the revenue increase of the upper class. Even the top 1%.
    - cmurf 11y ago
      From ~1932 to 1987, the top tax rate wasn't less than 50%. For more than 10 years it was above 90%. Basically it was a way to keep a handful of people from getting all of the marbles. If you don't like how the government spends money, grow a business or start a business, those expenses are all tax deductible. The idea is to keep money moving.
      - 11y ago
zieski 11y ago
In the US it also varies a lot on a state by state basis.[1] Handy image: https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2015/01/Map-1pct-by-state-01-23-14.jpg https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp-content/upl... [1] http://www.epi.org/publication/income-inequality-by-state-1917-to-2012/ http://www.epi.org/publication/income-inequality-by-state-19...
youngtaff 11y ago
Consultants with merit awards will be pushing the towards £150k marks, so do many others e.g. GPs in partnerships etc. Trouble with defining the 1%ers based on salary is that it avoids the really wealthy i.e. those with capital
walshemj 11y ago
The average GP is on about £120k so a senior consultant could get over £160 if they did some private practice.

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.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    Apologies - I manage to misread your comment to be the opposite of what it actually is! [Edit: have an upvote]
  - JeremyNT 11y ago
    I believe you are mischaracterising what the OP said. Take a look at what was written: > The 1% are your small town local doctor and lawyer Which is, I believe, demonstrably untrue. "Small town" [x] will earn less than "big city" [x] in general, and there are few elite medical facilities or high powered law firms in small towns. This may seem like pedantry, but it's important to watch for this kind of language: the talking point that "small town doctors" are in the 1% is a powerful tool in trying to convince people that "the 1%" are just plain 'ol folk. You wouldn't want to tax good 'ol Atticus Finch, would you? I mean, he's barely getting by as it is! If OP had said "high performing doctors and lawyers" rather than "small town doctors and lawyers," that would be a much more accurate statement which would carry a very different connotation.

retube 11y ago

That defines a 1%er in the UK. On a global basis a much, much more modest income will put you in the 1%.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jeremysmyth 11y ago
I would guess that a large proportion of people reading this comment have incomes in the top 1% globally. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615... Interestingly, this is less likely to be the case in wealth terms; many people globally with a lot of wealth (e.g. in agricultural land) have relatively low incomes, and the opposite is also true.
- bzbarsky 11y ago
  Measuring wealth without adjusting for lifecycle effects (which is how it's usually done) is a meaningless exercise. A doctor four years into his or her career almost certainly has negative wealth, while any retiree not solely depending on a government pension presumably has some reasonable wealth.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Which misses the point. Being a 1%er isn't about some income, it's about economic agency. Doctors in the UK are well-paid professionals, but - like scientists, artists, academics, engineers, writers and other members of the middle class - their influence on policy is essentially zero. The biggest political change of the last few decades in the UK has been the absurd concentration of political power in the hands of speculators, bankers, property developers, creators of sweatshop industries, and a tiny number of "consultancies" that are hired to provide public services that used to be publicly owned. A few of the biggest IT corps - most obviously Google and MS - are on that privileged access list. No one else gets a say in policy. Voting is a sideshow. Policy is set in secret meetings which are unminuted and off-the-record even if they take place in government offices. The real meaning of "1%er" is anyone who can buy access to ministers - because it's been proven time and again that access is for sale - and influence policy for their own benefit. I know less about the US, but so far as I can tell the setup is very similar, but perhaps less indirect. You pay for your senator or congressman or president on the way up, and then they do what you want, more or less, while they're in power. There's a lot of show about caucuses and candidates and voting and flags are waved while pundits punditise. But the real decisions happen with money - euphemistically known as "favours" - on the table, and most voters are excluded from that process because they don't have the organisation, the social links, or - obviously - the money to take part. If you are not playing at that level you are not a 1%er. Having a six figure salary does nothing to change that, because ultimately your income stream is just as susceptible to the whims of the people who do play at that level as everyone else's.

cm2187 11y ago

That's very interesting, thanks for posting the HMRC link, I didn't know the data was that readily available. I tried plotting the difference 1999-2013 by percentile, first in absolute terms (£ difference): http://imgur.com/d7WYyxP http://imgur.com/d7WYyxP Which support that the wealthiest part of the population (upper middle class) benefited the most from the past 15 years. However if you do the same in relative terms: http://imgur.com/JVH4rFB http://imgur.com/JVH4rFB it is the lowest part of the income distribution who benefited the most, seeing their wages doubling. The very much upper end too. But not the middle class. Depending on how you look at it, it can be used as an argument both ways. Which is why I hate when people reduce something as complex as a distribution into one number. It's too easy to lie with statistics.

iaskwhy 11y ago
Imgur is blocked at the office but I'd like to add there must be a very strong effect of the personal allowance (you don't pay any tax up to 11k) increase when comparing changes over the last decade. There are exception if your income is in the top bracket.
- cm2187 11y ago
  Logically I would expect the same though I do not know what was the tax system like in 1999, but it actually doesn't change much: http://imgur.com/JzUziar http://imgur.com/JzUziar The only key impact of taxes is to cancel the revenue increase of the upper class. Even the top 1%.
  - cmurf 11y ago
    From ~1932 to 1987, the top tax rate wasn't less than 50%. For more than 10 years it was above 90%. Basically it was a way to keep a handful of people from getting all of the marbles. If you don't like how the government spends money, grow a business or start a business, those expenses are all tax deductible. The idea is to keep money moving.
    - 11y ago

zieski 11y ago

In the US it also varies a lot on a state by state basis.[1] Handy image: https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2015/01/Map-1pct-by-state-01-23-14.jpg https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp-content/upl... [1] http://www.epi.org/publication/income-inequality-by-state-1917-to-2012/ http://www.epi.org/publication/income-inequality-by-state-19...

youngtaff 11y ago

Consultants with merit awards will be pushing the towards £150k marks, so do many others e.g. GPs in partnerships etc. Trouble with defining the 1%ers based on salary is that it avoids the really wealthy i.e. those with capital

walshemj 11y ago

The average GP is on about £120k so a senior consultant could get over £160 if they did some private practice.