5 ms·

If you're making over $380k, then you're in the top 1% of households in the US by income. If you're making over $150k, then you're in the top 5% of households

If you're making over $380k, then you're in the top 1% of households in the US by income. If you're making over $150k, then you're in the top 5% of households in the US by income. If you're making over 100k, then you're in the top 10% of households in the US by income. http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2006prel.pdf http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2006prel.pd... There are some lines. I'd draw it at "top 5% by income."

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
comatose_kid 18y ago
I wouldn't define 'rich' by income alone, because 150k ain't rich in the Bay Area.
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  While I do understand what you're saying, it ain't poor.
- gjm11 18y ago
  That's like saying "150k ain't rich if you have a 100k/year gambling habit" or "150k ain't rich if you have an enormous house purchased with a big mortgage". Living in the Bay Area is a luxury that only the well-off can afford without great hardship; it has benefits which mean that many people do it even though after paying to live in the Bay Area they don't have much disposable income. Just as many people choose to take out large mortgages, or buy fast cars, or gamble, or whatever, even though they may not then have much disposable income left.
  - diego 18y ago
    The same can be said of living in the US. You could move to a cheaper part of the world, perhaps even telecommute. You could argue that you grew up in the US, so staying home is not a luxury. Those who grew up in the Bay Area don't see living there as a luxury any more than you see living in the US as a luxury.
    - gjm11 18y ago
      Actually, I don't live in the US. But yes, living in the US is a luxury, but that isn't relevant to the US tax system because everyone taxed by the US (more or less) lives in the US. (When people say things like "we should tax the rich more" or "we shouldn't tax the rich more", "rich" is really shorthand for "among the best-off of the people being taxed".)
- Tangurena 18y ago
  I'd consider the Bay Area to be like Greenwich Village - a luxury area. In most parts of the country, median house divided by median income is running about 4-6. In those 2 areas, I've seen ratios in the ballpark of 40 and 75. I live in Denver, and within walking distance of my apartment I see homes ranging from $175k to $15M. Should we subsidize the lifestyle to which you'd like to become accustomed - because you want to live in a nice area? I don't think so.
- helveticaman 18y ago
  Keep in mind the Bay Area has an artificial housing shortage. Palo Alto is zoned as agricultural land, despite having no real agriculture.
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
So if you're a mechanic making $40K a year and win the lottery or something for one year and make $200K, you're rich and owe the rest of us a greater percentage than you did the year before? Likewise if you're a multimillionaire video-store owner who has a bad year and only makes $40K you're poor, and deserve some money from the mechanic? What ever happened to the idea of treating each voter the same as every other voter? It seems to me like any kind of segmenting -- by income, by net worth, by religion, by race, by looks, etc -- starts to pit groups of people against each other. I don't think there are lines, or rather I think drawing them is a really bad idea.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

comatose_kid 18y ago

I wouldn't define 'rich' by income alone, because 150k ain't rich in the Bay Area.

ojbyrne 18y ago
While I do understand what you're saying, it ain't poor.
gjm11 18y ago
That's like saying "150k ain't rich if you have a 100k/year gambling habit" or "150k ain't rich if you have an enormous house purchased with a big mortgage". Living in the Bay Area is a luxury that only the well-off can afford without great hardship; it has benefits which mean that many people do it even though after paying to live in the Bay Area they don't have much disposable income. Just as many people choose to take out large mortgages, or buy fast cars, or gamble, or whatever, even though they may not then have much disposable income left.
- diego 18y ago
  The same can be said of living in the US. You could move to a cheaper part of the world, perhaps even telecommute. You could argue that you grew up in the US, so staying home is not a luxury. Those who grew up in the Bay Area don't see living there as a luxury any more than you see living in the US as a luxury.
  - gjm11 18y ago
    Actually, I don't live in the US. But yes, living in the US is a luxury, but that isn't relevant to the US tax system because everyone taxed by the US (more or less) lives in the US. (When people say things like "we should tax the rich more" or "we shouldn't tax the rich more", "rich" is really shorthand for "among the best-off of the people being taxed".)
Tangurena 18y ago
I'd consider the Bay Area to be like Greenwich Village - a luxury area. In most parts of the country, median house divided by median income is running about 4-6. In those 2 areas, I've seen ratios in the ballpark of 40 and 75. I live in Denver, and within walking distance of my apartment I see homes ranging from $175k to $15M. Should we subsidize the lifestyle to which you'd like to become accustomed - because you want to live in a nice area? I don't think so.
helveticaman 18y ago
Keep in mind the Bay Area has an artificial housing shortage. Palo Alto is zoned as agricultural land, despite having no real agriculture.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

So if you're a mechanic making $40K a year and win the lottery or something for one year and make $200K, you're rich and owe the rest of us a greater percentage than you did the year before? Likewise if you're a multimillionaire video-store owner who has a bad year and only makes $40K you're poor, and deserve some money from the mechanic? What ever happened to the idea of treating each voter the same as every other voter? It seems to me like any kind of segmenting -- by income, by net worth, by religion, by race, by looks, etc -- starts to pit groups of people against each other. I don't think there are lines, or rather I think drawing them is a really bad idea.