3 ms·
"The 0.1 percent isn't the same group of people every year. " This makes it sound like some if not many members of this group are one-time members who have hug
by elsewhen 13y ago
"The 0.1 percent isn't the same group of people every year. "
This makes it sound like some if not many members of this group are one-time members who have huge capital gains that calendar year; many of those could be entrepreneurs who sold their company or those that had a huge gain in some investment.
- imgabe 13y agoI think that makes sense. They're using the IRS list of the 400 richest tax returns. I think when you're making money at that level you can hire enough tax attorneys and accountants to make sure your actual taxable income is not among the 400 highest in the country unless you have some major event like selling a company. It would make sense then that there's a lot of turnover in that metric.
- 001sky 13y agoAs a point of math, that's the top 0.0001% (Or, as a percentage of the workforce: 0.0005%)
- vannevar 13y agoThe 'churn' mentioned in the article is somewhat illusory, due by the use of a sliding scale. If you used a fixed threshold and identified those above that threshold, I think you'd see a much more stable picture at the top. The names at the peak may change, but that doesn't mean that the previous top wealth holders lost any, only that others gained faster.