Are There More Doctors Than Bankers in the 1%?
Over at CNN Money, Tami Luhby attempts to quantify the top 1 percent income earners in the United States. Sample:
[T]here were just under 1.4 million households that qualified for entry. They earned nearly 17% of the nation's income and paid roughly 37% of its income tax.
Collectively, their adjusted gross income was $1.3 trillion. And while $343,927 was the minimum AGI to be included, on average, Top 1-percenters made $960,000. […]
Many workers in the securities industry in New York likely qualify for the Top 1%.
These folks, many of whom work only blocks from where protesters are gathering in Zuccotti Park, made an average salary of just over $311,000 in 2009, according to the state Comptroller's Office. (This figure does not take into account certain income, losses and deductions that make up adjusted gross income.)
A separate study found that financial professionals made up about 14% of the top rank in 2005.
Executives, managers and supervisors working outside of finance accounted for 31%, the largest share, according to an analysis by Jon Bakija of Williams College, Adam Cole of the Treasury Department and Bradley Heim of Indiana University. Medical professionals came in at 15.7%, while lawyers made up 8.4%.
Whole thing here. Thanks to reader David H for the tip.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But but but we can't make enough money with Obamacare. lol
Isn't the 1% meme about wealth, not income? So, basically a fail from the get-go.
Who the fuck knows?
Do you think the 99% are using it consistently or with any real thought behind it?
There are plenty of guilt-ridden one-percenters using it inconsistently and without thought as well.
That too.
The point is that it isnt well-defined. I have no clue if they are referring to wealth, income, or beauty.
Every time I've heard someone go into the full whine, it's about 1% controlling 40%(?) of the wealth.
But their "fix" is to raise the income tax rates on high income earners.
So which the fuck is it?
My point being, if not obvious, that the top 1% of wealthy are not the same people as the top 1% of income. There is some overlap, but not as much as most people think.
NBA players are in the 1% of income earners, but very, very few are top 1% of wealth. What with most of them ending up bankrupt and all.
racist!
I think even the white basketball players go bankrupt.
Its probably due to the pot.
And their fix for government corruption is for the government to ban it. I didn't say they weren't morons, just that their definition of "1%" has seemed to consistently be about wealth.
That being the case, the linked article was either wrong, or was a deliberate bait and switch designed to make us think that the 1% were your local heart surgeon, and not Warren Buffett (who, as people have pointed out here, has a fairly small income relative to his wealth).
I think Buffett is still top 1% income-wise.
As you say, they are morons, so I dont conclude they have been consistent at all about it being top 1% of wealth, for reasons Ive already stated.
Oh, and while trying to figure out what the new worth to make you top 1% of wealth (this number is hard to fine, for a bunch of whiners they suck at publishing useful facts), I found a NYT article that uses top 1% of EARNERS to represent what the OWS is saying.
They arent consistent enough for the NYT to figure it out.
It appears the cutoff is about $5M in net worth.
So, using Millinaire Next Door terms, a minimal PAW (prodigous accumulator of wealth) to get to that level of net worth by age 50, would need to be making about 500k per year.
A regular accumulator of wealth would need a $1M income in order to get there.
"1% control 40% of the wealth; we are the 99%" is the only consistent idea they have. They can and should be beaten in the realm of ideas without resorting to intellectual dishonesty.
As a cynical aside, NYT is owned by the wealthiest man in the world, so it's not like there isn't interest in confusing the issue there.
It isnt consistent. They muddled it with their other ideas.
Libertarians justify property by saying property is necessary to survive.
Rothbard: ...must use and transform material natural objects in order to survive...
Rand: In order to survive, man has to...
Yet... 1% own 40% of wealth (property) in the US. 10% own 85% of the wealth.
There's an intellectual bait-and-switch going on, as follows:
1. We need stuff to survive Please, we need to survive!
2. All your stuff are belong to 1%. GOTCHA! I got mine, fuck you lazy parasites!
The consequences: Other people are NOT able to survive.
LIBERTARIANS: Justify needing 85% of the wealth for the richest 10% to "survive."
These people draw no distinction between wealth, income and money.
So how would they know what they're talking about?
I find it amazing that none of them have seen that Chris Rock bit.
What Chris Rock bit?
(no sarcasm, I really don't know what you're talking about)
Chris Rock on the difference between "wealthy" and "rich", Here.
I'm a pediatric gynecologist, does that count?
No, you're just a typical libertarian
No, this is the typical libertarian, you hydrocephalic mongoloid.
Orange text with a line that appears under it is the typical libertarian?
It's a Zen Koan.
LOL, he is a typical libertarian. Now which mother-fucker & pedophile can't do a HTML link....let me think
I would be curious to see the distribution within the top 1%. $350k is a nice income, but hardly mansion-and-Lamborghini rich. I suspect that the lawyers and doctors populate the bottom end of the top 1% while Wall Street bankers and private-sector CEO's are more likely to be on the top end of the curve. I'd be curious to see if that's actually the case.
Fuckin' joke handle...
I only screw that up ~100% of the time I use a joke handle.
Man, I wish I could get that figure as low as a mere ~100%.
You are the 99% (margin of error: +/-1%).
mansion-and-Lamborghini rich is one of 2 things:
1. Spending above your means
2. lots of WEALTH.
So, there are probably a lot of m&l rich who are in the bottom part of that 1% - including doctors.
You can get that rich with a 300k income too, by building wealth, but you do that by not owning a mansion or lamborghini.
Good point... As somebody who lives within my means, when I say "mansion-and-Lamborghini rich" I mean being able to buy those things without giving it a second thought. Obviously not everybody thinks like I do.
Unfortunately, I'm a banker who lives within his means but I'm only "23-year-old-Mercedes and 1,200 sqft house rich."
Dammit. I want so desperatly to be in the 1%. Anyone out there need to refinance?
You can't refinance student loans, correct?
Whoa that's quite the crotch shot
Since my wife is a physician and a corporate executive, does that make her a 0.01% ?
Health Industry Admits Felony Intent (But Is Exempt)
The Market Ticker ? - Commentary on The Capital Markets
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-.....st=2610784
Health Care Scams: Same As Banking
The Market Ticker ? - Commentary on The Capital Markets
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-.....st=2487421
They earned nearly 17% of the nation's income and paid roughly 37% of its income tax.
But the rich don't pay their fair share!
We know they don't pay their fair share because they're rich.
If they paid their fair share then they would not be rich.
So as long as they are rich, we know they have not paid their fair share.
Circular reasoning is fun!
It's a deceptive argument. Maybe you'll see it if you reduce the number of taxpayers to 100 and their total income to 100 dollars.
Joe Onepercent has an income of 17 dollars.
The other 99 taxpayers have an average income of about 88 cents.
Let's say Onepercent pays income taxes of 50 percent (we know he doesn't but let's just say). Now he's down to eight and a half bucks.
To make up the other 63 percent of the income taxes will cost the the 99 other taxpayers an average of about 23 cents, so they're down to 65 cents on average.
Scale it all back up and feel sorry for the horrible tax burden of the rich that is the lowest it's been in decades.
Or you could cut spending. Why do you want to raise taxes on the 99%?
a. (100-17)/99 = 0.838...
b. 14.5/99 = 0.156...
hmmm...
Libertarians justify property by saying property is necessary to survive.
Rothbard: ...must use and transform material natural objects in order to survive...
Rand: In order to survive, man has to...
Yet... 1% own 40% of wealth (property) in the US. 10% own 85% of the wealth.
There's an intellectual bait-and-switch going on, as follows:
1. We need stuff to survive Please, we need to survive!
2. All your stuff are belong to 1%. GOTCHA! I got mine, fuck you lazy parasites!
The consequences: Other people are NOT able to survive.
LIBERTARIANS: Justify needing 85% of the wealth for the richest 10% to "survive."
because there is no justification for 10% of the people to own 85% of the wealth just so they can survive.
Wait a second here. CNN is admitting the top 1% pay 117% more in taxes than their proportional share of income??
And a majority of Americans don't think this is enough to qualify as shouldering their fair share of the burden? What the frick is fair...having the 1% pay 100%???
What the frick is fair...having the 1% pay 100%???
"RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!"
-The Ninety-Niners
Do others than the wealthy have the right to survive?
They're certainly entitled to try. Fair warning: it may involve work. Even manual labor, like the sort that poor people without college degrees do.
Why do you always make it that the poor are poor because they don't work? That is a false, even dishonest, assertion.
As is your claim to be able to read.
He clearly claimed that the poor work.
Even manual labor, like the sort that poor people without college degrees do.
Fuck off LIAR.
What recovery? Working poor struggle to pay bills
By Stephanie Armour, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/money/.....poor_x.htm
What libertarian ha claimed a recovery?
Yeah, yeah, I have no idea why Im replying to white idiot either.
STICK TO ONE NAME YOU COCKSUCKER.
cocksuckers
LIAR. You started changing names on the thread I meantioned I incifed you.
I'm building quite the reasonable ignore list off this cuntbaggery.
Godammit, how much fucking whinging can they get into one article?
Indeed they do, and no one should interfere via force or fraud with their right to survive. Provided, of course, they respect the rights of others.
Oh, you mean like....privation property???
Because regulating the surface of the earth with abstract lines requires government aggression. And always creates a Trail of Tears.
I know several doctors and they are self employed.Before the make a dime they pay their staff,office expences,taxes and insurance.Plus a few still are paying for school.They also put in alot of hours.
Before the make a dime they pay their staff,office expences,taxes and insurance.
Isn't that pretty much the situation for every small business owner?
So if I'm reading this right, doesn't that make the President, at $400,000/year, a 1%er?
Hey, Obama is doing his best to socialize the nation. In the meantime, you better believe he's gonna get his cut.
Yep, the 1% need to survive too, and it takes 40% of America's wealth, gotten fair and square with the best scams libertarians and capitalists can devise. What a show.
Health Care Scams: Same As Banking
The Market Ticker ? - Commentary on The Capital Markets
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-.....st=2487421
Probably best to remember that medical licensing plays a large role in why doctor salaries are so high. In a sense, they too benefit from govt privileges.
If the license cap was eliminated, I could still imagine some docs making as much as is typical now. Those would actually be good (no, probably Great) doctors though, unlike the morons I recently had the pleasure of paying to deal with.
"Communications skills? HA! We're doctors, FUCK COMMUNICATION, muwahahahahahaha".
I think they would make good money, and I think some specialties in the profession would actually make more (plastic surgeons). Overall though, I think though their base salary would be less.
Come see the doctor, indeed. I will admit to liking French hip hop but who the fuck thinks "Gynecology Doc" is a cool, sexy stage name?
French People, Dags, French People.
We're talking about the same people who think smelling like ass is attractive.
Kool Keith (aka Dr. Octagonecologyst
Yeah, but Kool Keith was using layers of irony.
Come to think of it, this guy's French so he probably is, too.
I met Kool Keith backstage at a show once. He was super cool (no pun intended) and insisted I get an autograph. So his DJ hands me a couple of promotional pieces with KK on it, and he signs them, one to me, one to my friend, Mr Puma MC.
hello,welcome to http://www.luckygrip. com,i hope everyone will more like them because of there have more nice top goods and cheaper price in there,thanks
How is this relevant to the trillions created by the FED and loaned to banks as institutions? Bankers use their personal incomes to lobby the government? This has anything to do whatever with GE and ADM and JP Morgan using the authority of the state to undermine market rules? I hope no one was paid by rich oil billionaires to spin the anti-Wall St sentiment.
This figure is misleading. The top 1% live off business profits and financial holdings. If you want an accurate view of the top 1%'s wealth, look at how much they have in financial assets. The top 1% is WAY richer than those who earn $343k a year: http://josephncohen.wordpress......-per-year/