The top 1% of the US makes $480k or more in adjusted gross income

Consider four different people:<p>1. a lawyer who works 100 hours&#x2F;week flirting with a heart attack and earns $480,930<p>2. a small business owner who sells their plumbing co after 4 decades and earns $480,930 from the sale, but never broke six figures before<p>3. a retiree who sits on the couch 24&#x2F;7 and earns $480,930 in passive dividends<p>4. a professional of some kind who works 20 hours&#x2F;week in a low stress job and earns $480,930<p>The press likes to talk about these data points, and it&#x27;s valuable information, but ultimately income tells a very small piece of the story. Source of income, job security, cost of living, and quality of life all matter a lot too.

Some of it is just screwy. Like...<p>The average tax rate for the top 2% is higher than for the top 3%. That is as it should be, if you believe in progressive taxation.<p>It&#x27;s higher again for the top 1%, and higher again for the top 0.1%.<p>But then it&#x27;s <i>lower</i> for the top 0.01%, and <i>lower again</i> for the top 0.001%.<p>In fact, the average tax rate is lower for the top 0.001% than it is for the top 3%.<p>In 2015.

This title, while informative, is unfortunately not super related to the article itself, which is about municipal bonds, who buys them and asking the question, why are people buying fewer muni bonds than before?

Is this household or individual? I only see &quot;tax return&quot; mentioned, so it could be a mix of both.<p>A common Silicon Valley working couple, 10+ years into their careers are likely to be in the 1% if you roll in things like bonuses and stock&#x2F;option grants.<p>And at the same time you have people claiming to be middle class with incomes over $250K.

A good chart from 2012 to look at might be this<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.nytimes.com&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;packages&#x2F;html&#x2F;newsgraphics&#x2F;2012&#x2F;0115-one-percent-occupations&#x2F;index.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.nytimes.com&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;packages&#x2F;html&#x2F;ne...</a>

On a side note, you are in top 5% if you make about 200k&#x2F;year. I guess most of SE in CA are top 5% earners then.

&gt;The average AGI of the 1% in 2015 was $1,483,596 What is the point of this article? Seems like it just spews random descriptive statistics. I guess it gives you an idea of the shape of the wealth graph at the top extreme, but it&#x27;s too narrow to really say anything.