3 ms·

Yes, it is a significant barrier to entry. That is its purpose. Upper-income households (double the national median) account for 20% (side note: yeah, we have

Yes, it is a significant barrier to entry. That is its purpose. Upper-income households (double the national median) account for 20% (side note: yeah, we have a yawning wealth gap). Those household incomes are $207,400 in 2018. So I'm not going accept your 3% number. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-...

vonmoltke 6y ago
>> 97% of individual income earners > Upper-income households (double the national median) account for 20% (side note: yeah, we have a yawning wealth gap). Those household incomes are $207,400 in 2018. So I'm not going accept your 3% number. You are comparing two different things, so your objection is invalid. Also, as noted elsewhere, part of this change was to expand what incomes in the household count towards the accredited investor threshold. Some number of those households didn't qualify because some portion of their household income didn't.