• halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      Because the top 1% really isn’t that high and they hold 99% of the wealth. The other 99% of people hold 1% of the wealth. What do you think the annual income to be in the 1% is?

      I’ll put the rest of my response in a spoiler so you can think about it for a second, or comment it if you want, out of curiosity.

      spoiler

      Most people think the top 1% make millions of dollars annually from the conversations and surveys I’ve seen. The actual threshold for 1% varies by state, but in 2023, the national average was $652,657. While it is much higher than the average income of ~$37,500, it is not as high as most people think.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        If there is anyone who thinks that an income of nearly $700k per year doesn’t make someone wealthy, you’re insane.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          19 days ago

          We’re not talking just “wealthy”, we’re talking the top 1% of all income.

          Most Americans would probably say people making $100k/yr are “wealthy”. That’s because the average income is less than $40k. There’s a difference between just “wealthy” and the top 1% for most people.

            • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              19 days ago

              That’s edging toward muddying the point. You could also bring heritage (aka “race”) into the argument, or age, or disability, et al, and risk doing the same. No one’s debating granular data per geophysical location, etc., as this is a median national income bifurcation topic.

          • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            19 days ago

            They might also use that term because they confuse it with “rich”, and that’s a whole other issue: intentionally sub-par (mis)education to maintain the socioeconomic divide.

      • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 days ago

        Speaking in broad volumetric terms and then switching to simply stating (see: spoiler) the per annum floor for said 1% is sloppy and misleading. Please include the range that the 1% encompasses, earnings wise, to keep your modeling consistent.

      • pruwyben@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        19 days ago

        The top 1% have about 42% of the wealth. And in terms of income, which the tax would be based on, the top 2% would still be people making over $400,000 a year.

        • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          19 days ago

          Start with the 1%, and gauge response. Repeat with the 2% and add guillotines as set pieces, guage response. Lather, rinse, repeat until shit gets better. 🤘🏼