39 ms·

Are you referring to 1% of wealth or 1% of income? I think you are correct in regards to income as it is mid six figures[0]. But I think the general complaint a

Are you referring to 1% of wealth or 1% of income? I think you are correct in regards to income as it is mid six figures[0]. But I think the general complaint about the 1% is in reference to wealth which has a cutoff of about 10 million[0]. Also I was skeptical of your claim about the 1% (of income earners) paying that much (at least in terms of income tax) but this[1] does seem to support that you are at least in the ballpark. https://dqydj.com/top-one-percent-united-states/[0] https://dqydj.com/top-one-percent-united-states/[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-...

anovikov 7y ago
Top 1% of capital owners are just mostly very old people with comparatively little income. And their capital is passive and brings no or almost no profit (having 10M of capital and making 350K of income only 17% of which is income from capital - rest is from work - means abysmal 0.5% average return). It is in fact even less because most people who are top 1% by capital aren't top 1% by income: top 1% by capital is typically someone who bought some land on the cheap in 1950s and turned out lucky now when he's 90 years old, top 1% by income is a 30-year old Hollywood agent, Google coder, or a NYC lawyer. These people (top 1% by capital) are as far from archetypal "sharks of capitalism" as it gets.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Top 1% of capital owners are just mostly very old people with comparatively little income. Indeed. Someone who bought their house in the 70s or 80s and has now paid off their mortgage and also been contributing to a pension fund for a 40-year working life could easily retire with a “net worth” of $770k. It would be a stretch to count them as “rich”.

anovikov 7y ago

Top 1% of capital owners are just mostly very old people with comparatively little income. And their capital is passive and brings no or almost no profit (having 10M of capital and making 350K of income only 17% of which is income from capital - rest is from work - means abysmal 0.5% average return). It is in fact even less because most people who are top 1% by capital aren't top 1% by income: top 1% by capital is typically someone who bought some land on the cheap in 1950s and turned out lucky now when he's 90 years old, top 1% by income is a 30-year old Hollywood agent, Google coder, or a NYC lawyer. These people (top 1% by capital) are as far from archetypal "sharks of capitalism" as it gets.

goatinaboat 7y ago
Top 1% of capital owners are just mostly very old people with comparatively little income. Indeed. Someone who bought their house in the 70s or 80s and has now paid off their mortgage and also been contributing to a pension fund for a 40-year working life could easily retire with a “net worth” of $770k. It would be a stretch to count them as “rich”.