3 ms·

You're not in the 1% as it is popularly used. 1% applies to wealth, not income. I hear you on the difficulty of receiving a high wage yet finding it difficult

You're not in the 1% as it is popularly used. 1% applies to wealth, not income. I hear you on the difficulty of receiving a high wage yet finding it difficult to get a foothold established. In my city's case, there are extreme amounts of outside capital flowing into Austin to try to take advantage of the hype pumped out by all the various vacuous media channels in this country. All that wealth sitting out there, being used to drive up property prices so that average working folks can't afford to live in the city they supposedly live in.

twoodfin 11y ago
You're not in the 1% as it is popularly used. 1% applies to wealth, not income. This is historically inaccurate, at least for American politics. There, the use of the phrase "top 1%" goes back at least as far as debates over then-Governor George W. Bush's income tax plan in the 2000 election[1]. Gore frequently used it as 'wealthiest 1%', but he was clearly citing studies based on the income breakdown[2]. If you want somebody who will fight for you and who will fight to have middle-class tax cuts, then I am your man. I want to be. Now, I doubt anybody here makes more than $330,000 a year. I won't ask you, but if you do, you're in the top 1%. [1] http://debates.org/index.php?page=october-17-2000-debate-transcript http://debates.org/index.php?page=october-17-2000-debate-tra... [2] http://www.ctj.org/html/bush0800.htm http://www.ctj.org/html/bush0800.htm