People need to stop using the term "top 1 percent". We do have a serious (and dangerous!) problem with oligarchs in this country, but a 99.0th-percentile income

People need to stop using the term "top 1 percent". We do have a serious (and dangerous!) problem with oligarchs in this country, but a 99.0th-percentile income does not buy entry into the upper class (which might comprise 0.05-0.1 percent of the US population). Not even close. The upper class (as opposed to "the rich", which is a much larger and looser set) is a socially closed, parasitic network of people who maintain position by peddling favors and influence, and who have done a great job (in comparison to historical counterparts) of making the process appear meritocratic, even though hard work and education are actually contrary to their values. Now, not all rich people are upper class (Jobs wasn't, Gates is debatable) or parasitic crooks. Most rich people aren't. Likewise, not all upper-class people are rich (although they could easily become rich, or famous, if desired). The reason average people in the US are so parasite-friendly is that, when they think of "rich people", they think of scaled-up versions of the $500,000-per-year neurosurgeon (statistically "top 1%") or small businessperson who has been working her ass off since age 4-- not scummy investment bankers and well-connected influence-peddlers (e.g. the Bush family). If they understood how society actually works, they wouldn't fall for that ruse. No one wants to "soak the rich". On the other hand, most of us who are awake deeply desire an end to the culturally underaccomplished, corrupt plutocracy that has brought a nation to epic embarrassment and idiotic, endless war to two foreign countries.