These studies are nothing but troll bait. 1. What is 'income'. Do you mean taxable income that is received through an employer? Because if you do, most of the

These studies are nothing but troll bait. 1. What is 'income'. Do you mean taxable income that is received through an employer? Because if you do, most of the 1% at the top probably don't receive 'income'. For example John Kerry is worth about 600mil but received $60K in 'income' for the year he was running for president. The rest of the money gets funneled into off shore bank accounts 503B organizations, shell companies, etc. I think the only reason that he had any 'income' at all was because he sold a few paintings that year. Most of the super wealthy don't have any 'income' at all. 2. Globalization effects. I've lived in some of the wealthiest places in the US and many very wealthily people in the US are foreigners that happen to live here or have many their money overseas. So if Jack Ma decided to live in Washington D.C. would he be part of the top 1% of the US graph? Splitting a graph into US vs UK for instance may no longer be realistic in the modern world. Most 1%ers are globalized. Couple of other ideas I had: >> Technological change and globalization have widened the gap between skilled workers and less-educated workers. Take a look at india. Tech workers do alot better than their peers. Is that bad? Isn't that raising the standard of living for indians? Should all indians all go back to poverty so that they can not have any 'income inequality' in their country? I feel like these pieces are written to justify tax increases by getting people to believe that there is someone out their that can be 'squeezed' for money because 'it's just not fair'. The reality is that most Americans that make above 50K a year are probably in the top 1% of the global population. So maybe in that sense all americans are part of the super rich 1%ers.