If you want to get into the nitty gritty, consider that the 1% generally don't "own companies". That is a vague trope from the Occupy Wall Street types. A signi

If you want to get into the nitty gritty, consider that the 1% generally don't "own companies". That is a vague trope from the Occupy Wall Street types. A significant portion of the 1% are skilled professionals (programmers, doctors, lawyers, etc.) or rare talents (actors, musicians, athletes). Many are small business owners who are taking significant risks and typically work incredibly hard to be successful (and most fail). Many may be "owners" of companies in the sense that they are shareholders, but that fractional ownership is also available to you or I. Very few are in a position of outright ownership or even majority ownership of a company that is bigger than a small business. If your intention was to claim that the 1% get income passively, I think you may be drawing your percentiles at the wrong threshold. But I still disagree with your framing of the definition of "taking" as an ideological question and not a factual one. People have choice on where they live, what work they do, what they spend their money on, how they manage their free time, and so forth. If one person saves up, takes a risk, starts a small business, and offers employment at a certain exchange of money for time, that's not "taking" because "taking" implies an involuntary action or theft. The employer is offering a trade, and the employee is accepting it voluntarily, giving their time and labor in exchange for pay. That simply doesn't fit the definition of "taking".