Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The top 1% (money)

TetsugenTetsugen Registered User
edited April 2011 in Help / Advice Forum
Having an arguement with a friend and can't seem to find any solid info through google, but how much does one need to make to be considered the top 1% financially in North America ?

Tetsugen on

Posts

  • EshEsh Sunshine! Kittens! Rainbows! Smiles! Portland, ORRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    "At first he thought it might be a natural occurrence - maybe a rabbit. But upon closer inspection, it was clear a knife had been used. And rabbits don't carry knives."
  • khainkhain Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    This WSJ article breaks it down a little better for the top 1%, .1% and .01% along with other percentages giving the top 1% an income of $277,983 in 2004. One thing to keep in mind is that there is a vast difference between the top 1% in income and the top 1% in wealth.

    The only thing I can find for top 1% wealth is in this article where he mentions that the top 1% of household's average wealth is 12.5 million.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    yeah, even discussing Top 1% Income is fraught with danger. Cost of living being what it is, $277,983 doesn't get you nearly as far in some places as in others. Aside from that, there's the marginal cost of maintaining an income at that level... you can't go to work in blue jeans and a Three Wolf Moon shirt in the places that pay you $275K/year, just to give you one example. Add to that the $/hr breakdown when you consider that it's practically impossible to work a 40hr week and make that kind of cash, and the picture looks different yet again. We haven't even considered the taxation questions! Profit and total wealth are much more interesting numbers to look at, but even those aren't terribly useful depending on what you're discussing. Example: there are plenty of professional athletes who are in the top 1% of incomes but, the day they stop playing, they are essentially broke.

    Top 1% Income is, when you look at the broader picture, pretty useless as a measurement for anything. It's a nice talking point, but really not worth much else.

  • useless4useless4 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Is that per household or per individual? I am leaning towards per household.

    Where I live most couples make that and it doesn't go very far at all, I am thinking with inflation it's quite a bit more then those years old data.

  • YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    useless4 wrote: »
    Is that per household or per individual? I am leaning towards per household.

    Where I live most couples make that and it doesn't go very far at all, I am thinking with inflation it's quite a bit more then those years old data.

    Inflation between 2005 and now is almost negligible (4-5% probably). Especially given that wealth continues to go to the wealthy, the amount of money the people in the 1% easily increased faster than inflation.

    Edit: Also, the money is numbers given on the wiki were per household.

  • DrFrylockDrFrylock Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    useless4 wrote: »
    Is that per household or per individual? I am leaning towards per household.

    Where I live most couples make that and it doesn't go very far at all, I am thinking with inflation it's quite a bit more then those years old data.


    Where do you live that most couples pull down more than a quarter million US dollars a year?

    Did you by chance grow up in Philadelphia but then move in with your aunt, uncle, and cousin Carlton?

    Spoiler:
  • chrishallett83chrishallett83 Hi! Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    yeah, even discussing Top 1% Income is fraught with danger. Cost of living being what it is, $277,983 doesn't get you nearly as far in some places as in others. Aside from that, there's the marginal cost of maintaining an income at that level... you can't go to work in blue jeans and a Three Wolf Moon shirt in the places that pay you $275K/year, just to give you one example. Add to that the $/hr breakdown when you consider that it's practically impossible to work a 40hr week and make that kind of cash, and the picture looks different yet again. We haven't even considered the taxation questions! Profit and total wealth are much more interesting numbers to look at, but even those aren't terribly useful depending on what you're discussing. Example: there are plenty of professional athletes who are in the top 1% of incomes but, the day they stop playing, they are essentially broke.

    Top 1% Income is, when you look at the broader picture, pretty useless as a measurement for anything. It's a nice talking point, but really not worth much else.

    The cost of maintaining an income at that level? What? Having to buy a suit for work? When you are earning $5000/week, it's much easier to throw down $1000 on a nice suit compared to someone earning $250/week.

    With regards to taxation, the richer you are the easier it is to pay less or no tax at all. A busboy can't afford to have his accountant move all his funds and investments offshore, primarily because he can't afford an accountant, nevermind investments.

    As for the bolded part, you'll find that this happens for the same reason many lottery winners are worse off five years to a decade after they win, than before they won.

    Wasting all that money, and no plans for the future.

    Do you realise how stupid your post reads? Do you have a job? Or does daddy buy you a new private jet every year for Christmas?

    terriblepostsigpic.jpg
    AusPAX tickets get [X] Accomodation get [X] Plane tickets get [X] Goodie giftbags made [ ]
  • Iceman.USAFIceman.USAF Captain East CoastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    useless4 wrote: »
    Is that per household or per individual? I am leaning towards per household.

    Where I live most couples make that and it doesn't go very far at all, I am thinking with inflation it's quite a bit more then those years old data.

    Inflation between 2005 and now is almost negligible (4-5% probably). Especially given that wealth continues to go to the wealthy, the amount of money the people in the 1% easily increased faster than inflation.

    Edit: Also, the money is numbers given on the wiki were per household.

    Generally inflation is 3%/year, but the last 2 years have been slim (1% or so). 4-5% over 6 years is pretty low. I'd say more like 12-15%. This is just based on my estimation books, so not based on actual data.



  • useless4useless4 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    DrFrylock wrote: »
    useless4 wrote: »
    Is that per household or per individual? I am leaning towards per household.

    Where I live most couples make that and it doesn't go very far at all, I am thinking with inflation it's quite a bit more then those years old data.


    Where do you live that most couples pull down more than a quarter million US dollars a year?

    Did you by chance grow up in Philadelphia but then move in with your aunt, uncle, and cousin Carlton?

    Let's say Fairfax, VA based off this chart (Northern VA, but the area I live in still had cows in 2006)
    http://www.coli.org/COLIAdjustedMHI.asp which was number 16 at 100k per household apparently however the adjust ed dollar value equaled around 70k because of the stupid cost of living here.

    So let's extend this with some basic math. We'll have to assume that in 2006 - like now - the current average government salary is GS 12 step 5. In 2006 that means two GS 12s married to one another made 146k a year.
    http://www.opm.gov/oca/06tables/txt/gstbls.txt.

    So we're already 46k above the average household income. But remember that figures in all the minimum wage earners etc. Depending on the career field - 12 is either entry or life long "worker bee". Either way in Northern Va at that time you couldn't touch a town house in Fairfax for under 500k and we're talking a town house made in 1975. Single family houses are 1mil min at that time in Northern Va.

    But let's figure in Government Contractors. In 2006 I would have to look but my base salary was probably right around 60ish a year base salary as a gov. employee busting my ass for the past three years. My buddy made 10k less than me. The minute he quit and walked to a contractor he now was "low payed" at 80k a year. So let's say he is married to a contractor that makes 10 to 20k more... you are rapidly approaching 200k per household per year.

    And this is for people in their twenties with some to no experience and a four year degree. And there is a shit ton of those people post 2001 in Northern Va.

    Now what about people in their 40s or star performers in their late 20s / early 30s. They are pulling in between 120 and 130 at this time as middle entry contractors or 14/15 government employees. Two of them married are now pulling just a hair width away from 270.

    Now at this time no one lives rich here because they all have house payments way north of 4000 a month. And car payments in the 600-700s etc.

    Let's flash forward to 2011 where for the past two years the average salary of us gov't employees is 12/5 and that would mean 84k in DC. two of those married make 160k. Alot of these people who were 12s are now 14 and 15s, so if you have a 14 and a 15 married together they make at least 230k according to this http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/txt/gstbls.txt.

    So you could see where that number seemed low to me for being the top1% household incomes. Literally I only know government contractors and employees, but almost every one I know either skirts that or exceeds that number but me.

  • useless4useless4 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    yeah, even discussing Top 1% Income is fraught with danger. Cost of living being what it is, $277,983 doesn't get you nearly as far in some places as in others. Aside from that, there's the marginal cost of maintaining an income at that level... you can't go to work in blue jeans and a Three Wolf Moon shirt in the places that pay you $275K/year, just to give you one example. Add to that the $/hr breakdown when you consider that it's practically impossible to work a 40hr week and make that kind of cash, and the picture looks different yet again. We haven't even considered the taxation questions! Profit and total wealth are much more interesting numbers to look at, but even those aren't terribly useful depending on what you're discussing. Example: there are plenty of professional athletes who are in the top 1% of incomes but, the day they stop playing, they are essentially broke.

    Top 1% Income is, when you look at the broader picture, pretty useless as a measurement for anything. It's a nice talking point, but really not worth much else.

    The cost of maintaining an income at that level? What? Having to buy a suit for work? When you are earning $5000/week, it's much easier to throw down $1000 on a nice suit compared to someone earning $250/week.

    With regards to taxation, the richer you are the easier it is to pay less or no tax at all. A busboy can't afford to have his accountant move all his funds and investments offshore, primarily because he can't afford an accountant, nevermind investments.

    As for the bolded part, you'll find that this happens for the same reason many lottery winners are worse off five years to a decade after they win, than before they won.

    Wasting all that money, and no plans for the future.

    Do you realise how stupid your post reads? Do you have a job? Or does daddy buy you a new private jet every year for Christmas?

    The thing about them being broke the day they stop playing can be true though - because once they quit the amount of income they are drawing can be substantially reduced. For every big name that retires and carries marketability with them (michael jordon) there is some quickly forgotten third string special teams guy.

    It's not like recording artist who have new product in them - a person who quits football is not likely to suddenly play football again based on age, ability to compete etc.

    And let's say you bought a big house - even if you pay cash that tax bill is going to be shocker each year if you don't have money coming in. Cars require upkeep - doubly so if they are fancy. You still try to maintain a lifestyle like eating out (not Taco Bell) and having a cleaning crew come for a bit - but you're quickly reducing down any savings you have as you figure out what you're doing next to make money.

  • chrishallett83chrishallett83 Hi! Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Okay, so, let's say you sign a 5 year contract with the L.A. Lakers for $10 million.

    What would you do?

    Would you buy a $7 million dollar house? And a half million dollar car?

    Of course you fucking wouldn't. But a lot of these guys do.

    terriblepostsigpic.jpg
    AusPAX tickets get [X] Accomodation get [X] Plane tickets get [X] Goodie giftbags made [ ]
  • FeatherBladeFeatherBlade Registered User
    edited April 2011
    There's also the point that those top 1% people are paying about 20% of their income in taxes, while those of us in the bottom 99% percent are paying about 6%.

    In actual dollar amounts: someone (or a couple) who make a total income exceeding $250K, will pay a more than $50K in federal taxes. My father and stepmother, for example, are paying $58K in taxes this year, because their income was $250K.

    What they pay in taxes is two times my gross income.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    There's also the point that those top 1% people are paying about 20% of their income in taxes, while those of us in the bottom 99% percent are paying about 6%.

    In actual dollar amounts: someone (or a couple) who make a total income exceeding $250K, will pay a more than $50K in federal taxes. My father and stepmother, for example, are paying $58K in taxes this year, because their income was $250K.

    What they pay in taxes is two times my gross income.

    You're pretty much wrong on all accounts.

    Sorry, but the top 1 percentile does not pay 20% of their income in taxes. Neither does the bottom 99 percentile pay income tax of about 6%.

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • FeatherBladeFeatherBlade Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Alright, so I shouldn't make generalizations from insufficient data (I.E. my own personal experience - TurboTax says that my effective tax rate after deductions and whatnot is 6%), and people in the top 1% pay more than 20% of their income.

    I concede the point to you, sir.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Indica1Indica1 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    spool32 wrote: »
    yeah, even discussing Top 1% Income is fraught with danger. Cost of living being what it is, $277,983 doesn't get you nearly as far in some places as in others. Aside from that, there's the marginal cost of maintaining an income at that level... you can't go to work in blue jeans and a Three Wolf Moon shirt in the places that pay you $275K/year, just to give you one example. Add to that the $/hr breakdown when you consider that it's practically impossible to work a 40hr week and make that kind of cash, and the picture looks different yet again. We haven't even considered the taxation questions! Profit and total wealth are much more interesting numbers to look at, but even those aren't terribly useful depending on what you're discussing. Example: there are plenty of professional athletes who are in the top 1% of incomes but, the day they stop playing, they are essentially broke.

    Top 1% Income is, when you look at the broader picture, pretty useless as a measurement for anything. It's a nice talking point, but really not worth much else.

    The cost of maintaining an income at that level? What? Having to buy a suit for work? When you are earning $5000/week, it's much easier to throw down $1000 on a nice suit compared to someone earning $250/week.

    With regards to taxation, the richer you are the easier it is to pay less or no tax at all. A busboy can't afford to have his accountant move all his funds and investments offshore, primarily because he can't afford an accountant, nevermind investments.

    As for the bolded part, you'll find that this happens for the same reason many lottery winners are worse off five years to a decade after they win, than before they won.

    Wasting all that money, and no plans for the future.

    Do you realise how stupid your post reads? Do you have a job? Or does daddy buy you a new private jet every year for Christmas?

    Way to totally miss his point, and be a dick at the same time.

    His point being that top income is not at all representative of the richest people. He also showed some ways in which a large 6 figure salary is not as signifigant in the picture of true wealth as it sounds like it is. Really rich people don't have salaries.

    Also having a high salary doesn't make it easy to dodge taxes. Quite the contrary unless you are like a CEO for Exxon Mobil or some shit.


    If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
  • TubeTube Working As Intended Administrator, ClubPA admin
    edited April 2011
    This isn't a D&D thread

  • useless4useless4 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    removed: didn't realize this was H/A not D&D.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    useless4 wrote: »
    Is that per household or per individual? I am leaning towards per household.

    Where I live most couples make that and it doesn't go very far at all, I am thinking with inflation it's quite a bit more then those years old data.

    Inflation between 2005 and now is almost negligible (4-5% probably). Especially given that wealth continues to go to the wealthy, the amount of money the people in the 1% easily increased faster than inflation.

    Perhaps I'm being dense, but this sentence makes absolutely no sense to me. DO "the wealthy" somehow not have to spend their money, or what? Can you explain what you meant?

  • ceresceres Your photo framed Raw within my mindSuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited April 2011
    You guys are awful at this.

    OP has what he needs, I'm locking it.

    And I am done with my graceless heart,
    So tonight I'm gonna cut it out and then restart.

    The avalanche has already started; it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
This discussion has been closed.