What is the latest definition of a 1%'er?
 

Not the biker version if there is one. As opposed to a 99%'er. An article on the Huffington Post says the 1 % of the population that make over $344,000/yr.

It goes on to say, "Furthermore, the average 1 percenter has significantly more debt than the average 99 percenter, a difference of $124,000 in average total debt including mortgage, student loan, auto loan and credit card debt. For example, the average 1 percenter has nearly $154,000 in open mortgage debt and $11,300 in credit card debt, while the average 99 percenter has $51,000 in open mortgage debt and $6,200 in credit card debt. Excess debt can be detrimental to credit scores, yet while the average 1 percenter carries significant debt on multiple credit lines, their average credit score seems to reflect a well-balanced, well-managed credit portfolio."Justine Rivero: The 1% Versus The 99%: Who Has Better Credit?

Has the term started an evolution into more general usage? For instance, I recently termed myself a Craigslist 1%'er because I follow through. The seller in this case knew what I was talking about.

The 1%ers I know all look something like this:

http://motorcycle.este.us/wp-content...3348256134.jpg

I was one of the 5%ers in my USAF squadron--the guys who did all the work as opposed to the rest of them who made sure they were on the tee by 1300 (1:00). (Yeah, who's the smart one?)

As for the H-Post article, what percent of the respective incomes is debt in their examples? It says "over 344K/year" but what does the average 1%er make vs. how much % as debt are they carrying? Gotta' break down the statistics more it seems to me. I'll bet it's a hellova lot easier to carry debt as a 1%er than a 99%er.

Interesting stats being thrown around in that article, but relatively useless.

Amount of debt in itself is very little indication of the financial health of an individual, or of a business for that matter. What counts to me is debt to equity ratio.

So according to this article the average 1%er has a mortgage debt of 154k which is 3x higher than the average 99%er with 51k. So what?

Earlier in the article it says that the top 1% have an average of 225x the wealth of the average median household. So on the one hand the article seems to suggest that the so-called 1%ers are up to their eyeballs in debt vs. "regular folks" but taken in context of debt relative to assets (wealth) its a different story.

I also find all these generalizations about wealth and dollar figures above which one is considered "rich" are improper insofar as they fail to take cost of living into account. There is a HUGE difference in $334k of income in NYC vs. $334k of income in Oklahoma City (as an example). Families live reasonably decent lives in rural Maine on an income level that is below the poverty line in the greater NYC metro area.

Sad but true...many living the high life are buried up to their eyeballs in debt. I almost feel sorry for them...

When I was in high school "upper class" meant you at least 1 million in cash and assets, I'd say that might be 10 million at today's rate.
That's what I'd consider as "upper class" or rich. I always thought this is what being a 1%er meant. Or is being rich and a 1%er two different things?

I still don't understand what it takes to be considered part of the 1%. It sounds like they are saying that any single worker earning $344,000 per year is in the top 1% of all income earners. But they really appear to be referring to the combined earnings of everyone living in the household.

That makes no sense. A young professional couple with no family money could easily make $350,000 between the husband and wife, but have a modest net worth in the hundreds of thousands. A trust fund baby with no income could have a net worth in the top 1%. H. Ross Perot, with $3.2 billion in US Treasuries would have NO income.

You might be able to say that of households with earned income, those with combined family incomes of $344,000 are at the 99th percentile in earnings. Of course, this tells you nothing about their wealth. A young couple that just graduated from medical school could make a combined $350,000 this year. But if they were interns last year earning $35,000 and have a half million in debt, I wouldn't consider them rich. An idiot who inherited a $10 million trust fund and draws $250,000 a year out of it is rich. Wealth and earned income are two completely different things.

I thought the term came from earnings versus income tax payments, in which case assets and net worth aren't relevant, it's simply an income discussion point.

LESS than 1% of whiners are claiming to represent 99% of the people. --that we know.

Apples and oranges, there is a problem as to how a 1% is defined.

$344k in certain parts goes a long way while in others like NYC makes you just a middle class earner.

Yep.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1320866974.jpg

Well, I guess I'll continue to call myself a 1%'er even though I don't qualify on the income. If you divided my household income by my CC debt, I'm there.

.01%'er on CL. Just got stiffed on a tool box. Someone bought it out from under me even though I had an appointment to see it first thing.

Funny, he doesn't seem to be concerned whether his cell phone looks dorky...

He's on a Troublehead. That cellphone is his lifeline! :D

You shouldn't leave yourself wide open like that...

Of course the wealth redistributionist / tax-and-spend people (Obama) don't give a damn about cost of living, debt, or anything else - if you have the income you should fork it over, period.

Get your answer here. Kiplinger.com

Here is a romantic 1%er...



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1320913725.jpg

I met a girl in the park the other evening.
There was an instant spark between us and she
immediately dropped to her knees and laid on
the grass at my feet. As we lay making love,
I thought "These taser guns are well worth
the money".

From a global viewpoint, only 1% of the world's total population earn more than US $34,000 per year.
If you earn more than $34 K, you're the 1%.