Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

Roughly 80% of millionaires in the US are first generation (their parents weren't rich).

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-1-percent

Yeah, as alluded to, "millionaire" doesn't have the same meaning it used to. Yes, a millionaire is by no means poor or middle-class, but a professional (software dev, doctor, lawyer) can easily save up a million dollars if they live in a low-cost area or are frugal.

Let's punch it up to people with 10 million or more (which is more in line with what "millionaire" meant in the days of our parents and grandparents) and see how many first-generation are left. Obviously, that data is hard to come by (and frankly, I'm skeptical of the Cato data, just as I'm not citing data here from Citizens for a Fair Economy).

His link talks about the top 1%.. which starts at a net worth of $8.4m [0]. It's entirely possible you are both correct.

0. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-t...

By what definition of "rich"?

Googling turns up lots of people quoting that statistic, but none of them provide more details on who was surveyed or what methodology was used, so it's kind of meaningless.

Here a survey where the number is 61%.

http://www.ustrust.com/publish/content/application/pdf/GWMOL...

Millionaires are most certainly not the subject of his comment.

He used the term "wealthy". Is having more than $1M not wealthy? The tax codes suggests it is.

>The tax codes suggests it is

Yes, and this is a problem. We tax people who have $1M net worth far too much, and people who have $10M+ net worths (the true 1%) far too little.

Edit: Clarified that I meant to refer to net worth, which is far more useful to talk about.

Right. The 1% is terminology useful for reference and for rallies, but the real wealth is concentrated in the top 0.05%. "The 0.05%" is harder for the peoples' mic to say.

No, $10M is pretty close to the top 1% of net worths (~7-8M).

The claim here is that $10M is the wrong number to look at for inherited wealth and for a systemically enshrined class. That happens somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%.

1% makes a great campaign slogan, but is similarly picked from the air. If one wanted to find 'the number' related to the Bourgeoisie - it would be near 0.05%.

The problem with that is that although there are a few really extradinarily wealthy folks, taking even 100% of their wealth wouldn't sustain gov't spending for more than a few weeks. The tax base is mostly middle to upper-middle class taxpayers.

That doesn't match with the headline "top 1% owns nearly 50% of wealth." If 50% of wealth couldn't sustain the government for more than a few weeks, then that government would be running already on lollipops and rainbows.

Very few countries tax wealth, most tax income. The distribution isn't quite so skewed. But even then the richest 1% in the US already pay over 50% of all income taxes collected.

My point is, when people talk about taxing the rich, they are talking about most of the folks on HN (at least in SF). The top 1% households make ~$450k per year. That a couple who each take home $225k.

I remember an election in Canada a while back where the NDP (far left) said "We would increase the taxes on thr rich". Someone asked "who are the rich?" And they said "A family of four making more than $80K." I had to give them credit for being honest.

The median household income in the US is $30k.[1] So, yes, even one person who makes $225k is fabulously rich compared to half of American households, nevermind a couple who together make $450k.

Even at $80k, you're doing nearly 3 times as well as the median American household.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

Do you know what's cool?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com