What is the top 1 percent?

[suranyi]

@sbunny8

I was just thinking that same thing. Our fearless leader allegedly once claimed to be poorer than a homeless man because he (the leader) had a net worth of negative four billion dollars at the time. Yet he was riding in limousines, eating foie gras and caviar, flying in a private jet, and shitting in a gold toilet. Net worth is often a negative number for members of the middle class too, despite living a comfortable lifestyle, driving a decent car, never going hungry, always able to see a doctor, able to take two weeks of annual vacation from their job (or possibly retired). Contrast that to a poor person who rides public transit, often skips lunch because they simply don’t have $6 for a sandwich, can’t pay the deductible on their health insurance, never gets any vacation unless you count staying home with the flu, and has a net worth of zero because they have very little assets and very little debts (largely because no one will loan them any money due to their low credit rating).

We really need a better metric for what it means to be rich. But I don’t know how to decide what the metric should be. Who was the jackass that recently suggested that poor people aren’t really poor because 97% of them have a refrigerator? I can’t remember. The point is, if you start brainstorming ideas for what really measures how rich or poor you are, some people are bound to suggest some ridiculous ideas and then you’ll have arguments about what’s ridiculous and what isn’t.

One metric I’ve seen used lately is “If you had a sudden unexpected doctor bill for $400, could you pay it right now without dipping into your savings, yes or no?”. That’s a pretty good one. And recent data shows that, despite the unemployment rate being very low (the lowest point since Bill Clinton was President), the percent of Americans who answer yes to that question hasn’t gone up.

About 3 years ago the NYT published a huge series on class in America. What they found was that there were several markers of one’s status beyond income and wealth. Some were education and occupation.

The archived version is here, but you might need a NYT subscription to see it:

Class Matters - Social Class in the United States of America - The New York...

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Even for non-wealthy people, income is not necessarily an indicator. Many retired people will have small incomes but a million or more in accumulated wealth.

That’s the reverse of younger people who have large incomes but a lot of debt and small savings.

That first grouping is set by almost any standard. They can afford to do pretty much as they like, don’t have to worry about a $400 doctor bill or even a $40,000 hospital bill, have a paid-off mortgage. You can probably find them all over the place without noticing that they are millionaires.

Are they one percenters? According to this Net Worth Percentile Calculator for the United States in 2017, Not counting house value, $1,000,000 is 91st percentile. $2,500,000 is 96th percentile, $10,000,000 is 99th percentile. (I found this one more straightforward to use than the one jasg linked to last year.) A percentile is 629,908 households.

My gut feeling is that this is a fair indicator of what we think of as wealthy. It includes the superwealthy, but there are fewer than 1000 billionaires in America, so they spoil our perceptions.

[Hellestal]

@Chronos

Not only is wealth not the same thing as income, but neither is the same thing as economic status. It’s possible to be rich, even filthy rich, with very little income and zero or negative wealth. This is a lot more difficult to quantify, though.

This is quantified regularly at the national level, by looking at consumption data rather than income or wealth.

Of course it’s harder to measure at the individual level, but we’d probably have more reasonable discussions of inequality if we could push in that direction.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Matthew 19:24

[Telemark]

24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

So, that really has nothing to do with being damned to eternal hellfire because you’re rich.

[Chisquirrel]

@Telemark

So, that really has nothing to do with being damned to eternal hellfire because you’re rich.

Not to get in a huge theological discussion, but Christians are called to lead godly lives - though all fall short of the glory of God, and thus must be redeemed in Christ, it doesn’t mean you stop trying.

[glowacks]

@John_Mace

Missed the edit window. For example, my AGI will rise this year not because I’ll make more money, but because my SALT (State And Local Taxes) deduction will be limited to $10K. That means I have less take home pay, even though my AGI is higher (the lower tax rates offset the loss of deductions somewhat but not fully).

AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) is the amount before Schedule A itemized deductions, but after most deductions that aren’t on Schedule A like student loan interest, IRA contributions, alimony paid, etc. State and Local Income Taxes are Schedule A deductions. The amount after Schedule A (and previously, after exemptions), is Taxable Income. Your AGI is likely to be the same as it was last year, or whatever it would have been without the change to the tax code.

It’s certainly possible for people to have their taxable income go up because a bunch of Schedule A deductions are being disallowed and the tax they owe go down, even before considering the increased child tax credit, since the rates went down on everyone except the poorest. I don’t think they touched any of the pre-AGI deductions though, so AGIs won’t be affected.