Quote:
Originally Posted by plib
The important issue isn't earned income, it's wealth. The top 1% would be the highest income earners without raising a finger. In fact a large number of them are. If you're born into a billion dollar trust fund it really doesn't matter what you decide to work at, or whether you decide to work at all. Same concept with the top 10%, being in the top 10% of income earners is a far, far cry from being in the top 10% of wealth owners. If you're interested it might pay you dividends (non-cash and not tax deductible) to read the referenced article.
|
First, who is to say that top 10% percent refers to wealth and not income? Second, and more importantly, it doesn't matter.
Being in the top 10% (of income earners or wealth holders) means just what 10% implies - 10 out of 100 qualify. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about wealth or income; the top 10% is still 10 out of 100. It may be the case, as you say, that
Quote:
|
"being in the top 10% of income earners is a far, far cry from being in the top 10% of wealth owners.
|
But they are still just 10 out of 100. If you take a random group of 100 people, 10 of them will be in the top 10% of wealth. (And 10 will be in the top 10% for income, which may or may not overlap). In the US, 30 million people are in the top 10%. That's not a small number.
So, yeah, MR with its thousands of members is likely to have many people in the top 10% by wealth and by income. It would be highly unlikely for that not to be the case.