Hacker News Reader

Comment by turnip1979 | Hacker News Reader

turnip1979

No. I am sick of politicians vilyfing the 1% ... in Canada, that means a family income of around 180K. Taxes get raised, benefits get cut etc. on people who have to pay 8-12 times their income to afford houses in major cities and have massive student loan debts to service (where professional jobs are anyways). Having a tax system that is blind to local income/cost of living differences is stupid. The 1% rhetoric really needs to end. I am in the 1% and I am fucked. I'm in my late 30s .. I have no house and can barely afford one. Sorry if this sounds like whining but this system of screwing people who actually do work and generate income needs to end. Here's an idea ... lets stop taxing income and start taxing assets.

View on HN

You're not in the 1% as it is popularly used. 1% applies to wealth, not income. I hear you on the difficulty of receiving a high wage yet finding it difficult to get a foothold established.

In my city's case, there are extreme amounts of outside capital flowing into Austin to try to take advantage of the hype pumped out by all the various vacuous media channels in this country.

All that wealth sitting out there, being used to drive up property prices so that average working folks can't afford to live in the city they supposedly live in.

You're not in the 1% as it is popularly used. 1% applies to wealth, not income.

This is historically inaccurate, at least for American politics. There, the use of the phrase "top 1%" goes back at least as far as debates over then-Governor George W. Bush's income tax plan in the 2000 election[1]. Gore frequently used it as 'wealthiest 1%', but he was clearly citing studies based on the income breakdown[2].

If you want somebody who will fight for you and who will fight to have middle-class tax cuts, then I am your man. I want to be. Now, I doubt anybody here makes more than $330,000 a year. I won't ask you, but if you do, you're in the top 1%.

[1] http://debates.org/index.php?page=october-17-2000-debate-tra...

[2] http://www.ctj.org/html/bush0800.htm

You earn more than 99% of people and you think you're fucked?

Yeah... And he explained. Also with student debt it actually makes a lot of sense. Many doctors have hundreds of thousands in debt. Some people need their high salaries.

People who are over 45 own most of the houses. Bought years ago for a fraction of the current price.

Finance needs it's cut of everything.

What does finance have to do with everything? Or are you complaining about the fact that interest rates exist?

The 1% are proportionally more represented in bankruptcy court than the 10%.

If being in the top 1% is so hard, why not share a bit more of that wealth?

It's not "hard", it's just more complicated. And sharing the wealth is harder still. I say that based on observation; I doubt I'll ever be a 1%-er. Maybe a 10%-er, but probably not.

Earn more pre-tax

Letting this misconception continue is also potentially (although unlikely) dangerous to all of us who worked our way into the 1%. If there ever is any large scale social movement "against the 1%" the population involved in that movement is apparently not going to distinguish between us and the billionaires with inherited wealth.

Are you suggesting it's okay to tax their wealth but not yours?

Obviously, it's always ok to vilify others

Yes .. but, by definition, 99% of people are worse off than you. They can't afford a house either.

Not true. Think about it.

For someone making $90k in San Francisco, a 1-bedroom apartment with a parking space is categorically off the table.

For someone making $45k in the Midwest, a 3-bedroom house with a 2-car garage in an excellent school district is expected.

If the 1%er moves to a lower cost of living area, he will not be a 1%er anymore.

But SF is an outlier for cost of living. And anyone in the U.S. can still buy a toaster for $25 no matter where you live etc.

Look at all the houses in the US. They can't all be owned by only 1% of the population.

Where in canada do you live? Is there anything specific location wise that keeps you to a certain location? You probably could afford a house in alberta or quebec for example. But toronto and especially vancouver are economic bad ideas. Could you get a job in the USA too? The price/income ratios there tend to be much better.

Hang on isn't Canada's homeownership rate like >>50%? How is it that you can't afford a house if you're in the 1%?

Housing in Canada never stopped going up in price.

Prices increased around 50-100% since 2008. In 2008, the market was considered by many to be overvalued.

When I bought my house in Toronto 20 years ago it was 3.5 times my annual salary. Now it is valued at more than 7 times my current salary (doing the same type of work).

When houses start at over 1 million even the bottom of the 1% can have trouble buying. Houses are going up 24% year over year which is much higher then you can save money. Condo prices prices are not going up as quickly so they don't work as a good stepping stone. Out in the burbs if you want to be near transit will still be 600-800 for something livable, actually there doesn't seem to be a difference in price between a tear down and something you could live in. Might be a bit bias as I was out looking at houses on the weekend.

Move away from all the rich people.

> Houses are going up 24% year over year

That's called a bubble, such a rise is not sustainable.

Look, you're living in a place full of rich people, so you feel poor by comparison, that's expected, so deal with it or move.

If rents are disconnected from housing prices, you're in a housing bubble. I think you're in vancouver too, so move away!

This is surprisingly difficult: http://www.crackshackormansion.com/

You need to think about how to stop the banks creating more credit. That is absorbing all productivity gains. Forget semantics about 1% or 0.1%.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com