I often chat with my wife (Chinese, runs her own business) about relative wealth in her home country. She’s easily 1%, but living in big east coast Chinese cities, it often feels like we’re pretty average, even sub-average. The hundreds of millions of rural and urban poor are almost hidden from view.
There's no upper limit and the right edge of the income distribution looks almost exponential. Mere multimillionaires feel like paupers next to the billionaires.
This feels true in Manhattan, too, where most people here are affluent compared to the rest of the nation. However, in NYC, being average amongst the people doesn’t feel like a bad thing. That’s what I like about NYC anyways.
This article seems to focus on top 1% by income. Very few of the top 1% earners in any developed country are also in the top 1% of wealthy people. The truly wealthy tend to be so because of their capital/assets. Salary is an utterly tax inefficient way to convert your life's work into personal wealth, versus other forms of income/compensation.
Having a country-wide 1% must pull it down in some cases.
For instance in the UK if you bought the $4.1m London home on a 25 year, 3% mortgage, with a 25% deposit you'd pay about $170k per year. But after tax your $290k "top-1%" income would be about $185k -- only just enough to even cover your mortgage, forget about school fees.
I wonder what the London, NY, LA etc 1% numbers are? Surely that's a fairer comparison to e.g. Singapore anyway, since it's a city-state.
At least according to this site [0] (which references a 2013 report [1]) for instance, to be in the 1% in New York state you have to be making at least $517,557. However, the average annual income of those in the 1% is $2,006,632.
In Mississippi, though, you only have to be making $264,952 to be in the 1% and the average annual income of the 1% in MS is $565,813.
Of course, you have to consider cost of living and what not, but 1% is definitely not the same everywhere.
This reflects top 1% of income yet I'm not sure this is the best metric. It's much easier to measure income than wealth....many of those in the top 1% of income are probably not in the top 1% in terms of wealth.
The tax information is way off, at least for Canada. I'm guessing they are quoting federal taxes only, ignoring provincial taxes. In Ontario/Toronto, the highest combined marginal taxes are around 54% [0]
I've been in Bahrain and UAE for many years, income and wealth inequality is a real problem. A lot of the high earners are either sheikhs, landed nobility and business people who have large businesses in oil, energy, etc. who had opportunities open to them and could grab it while Bahrain or UAE was still undeveloped. It is also why their high earners is so high up in rankings. This coupled with the fact that these places are tax havens or pay much less tax because the govt can rely on oil revenue means you can keep a lot more of your income.
However, it seems there has been an economic downturn recently and taxes have been increasing so the economic landscape of Middle Eastern countries could change.
Interesting that in Mumbai someone who just reaches the top 1% of earners must pay 44% of their income to send one child to a private school, while in Australia it is only 8%.
I am not sure if that number is accurate (or which super-exclusive school they've taken as reference). Private School fees depend on the institution and the grade you're in, and varies from $5-25K.
Given the population size and density, competition is not nearly the same, and hence, top education is probably more expensive compared to the local wealth in India.
Yes, I had that same impression reading that chart. The top marginal tax rate in California is 13.3% and the top federal rate is 37%, so the top total tax on earned income is 50.3%.
[+] [-] westiseast|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ForHackernews|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antwerpen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] collyw|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddoran|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Blackbeard_|7 years ago|reply
For instance in the UK if you bought the $4.1m London home on a 25 year, 3% mortgage, with a 25% deposit you'd pay about $170k per year. But after tax your $290k "top-1%" income would be about $185k -- only just enough to even cover your mortgage, forget about school fees.
I wonder what the London, NY, LA etc 1% numbers are? Surely that's a fairer comparison to e.g. Singapore anyway, since it's a city-state.
[+] [-] breakbread|7 years ago|reply
At least according to this site [0] (which references a 2013 report [1]) for instance, to be in the 1% in New York state you have to be making at least $517,557. However, the average annual income of those in the 1% is $2,006,632.
In Mississippi, though, you only have to be making $264,952 to be in the 1% and the average annual income of the 1% in MS is $565,813.
Of course, you have to consider cost of living and what not, but 1% is definitely not the same everywhere.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/how-much-you-have-to-earn-to...
[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/income-inequality-in-the-us/...
[+] [-] Blackstone4|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] david-gpu|7 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm
[+] [-] forkLding|7 years ago|reply
However, it seems there has been an economic downturn recently and taxes have been increasing so the economic landscape of Middle Eastern countries could change.
[+] [-] MarkMc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeswin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sametmax|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] siberianbear|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sametmax|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AJRF|7 years ago|reply
I'm sure that shifts a bit from year to year
[+] [-] klohto|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] electricityUser|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sametmax|7 years ago|reply