# data[].attributes.body
At a recent pace of about $2.5 trillion a year, that number we estimate crossed the $50 trillion mark by early 2020. That’s $50 trillion that would have gone into the paychecks of working Americans had inequality held constant—$50 trillion that would have built a far larger and more prosperous economy — Time

# data[].attributes.body
The Gini Index grew from 0.482 in 2017 to 0.485 last year, according to the bureau's 1-year American Community Survey data. The Gini Index is on a scale of 0 to 1; a score of "0'' indicates perfect equality, while a score of "1'' indicates perfect inequality, where one household has all the income.  — NBC News

# data[].attributes.body
The top 20% of Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 14%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.

# data[].attributes.body
— The United States ranked ahead of Switzerland and Singapore in per capita wealth, but it was dead last in Allianz’s index ranking of wealth equality (a list headed by Slovakia, Belgium and Japan). Jack Ewing - New York Times

# data[].attributes.body
In 2018, the richest 10% held 70% of total household wealth, up from 60% in 1989. The share funneled to the top 1%’ jumped to 32% last year from 23% in 1989. Forbes.com

# data[].attributes.body
Nationwide, it takes an annual income of $538,926 to be among the top 1%. Among the approximately 1.4 million taxpayers who meet this threshold.  —
USA Today

# data[].attributes.body
To be considered “rich,” Americans say you need a net worth of at least $2.3 million. — CNBC

# data[].attributes.body
When the Census Bureau began studying income inequality in 1967, the Gini index was 0.397. In 2018, it climbed to 0.485.  By comparison, no European nation had a score greater than 0.38 last year. — Washington Post

# data[].attributes.body
Average annual income of the top 1%: $1,316,985.  What you need to make to be in the top 1%:  $421,926.  Average income of everyone else (the bottom 99%): $50,107.  The top 1% make 26.3 times more than the bottom 99%.  In metropolitan areas such as Jackson, WY-ID metro area, the top 1% makes 132 times more than the bottom 99%.  In counties such as Teton County, WY, the top 1% make 142.2 times more than the bottom 99%.  In — Economy Policy Institute

# data[].attributes.body
This graph isn’t very balanced, the bottom 40% of people have less than 1% of income in the whole USA which is just a tiny line on the graph.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Look at Income Inequality i the United States

# data[].attributes.subject
A Look at Income Inequality i the United States

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc7g6Uhi1i4 This video by Time does a good job explaining not just if Income Disparity is going down or up but why.

# data[].attributes.body
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett have collectively more wealth than the 160 million poorest Americans, or half the population of the United States.  — CNBC

# data[].attributes.body
This is a graph from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, it is a graph that represents the increase of the amount the US’s income disparity is rising.

# data[].attributes.body
This graph shows how many people can’t afford things that are essential like healthcare, pensions, and people with low wages.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Stanford.edu, as of 2008, around 94.8 million people are unemployed and 140.1 million people are employed.  Those two numbers are awfully close to eachother.

# data[].attributes.body
This graph not only shows the top 1% but also the top 0.1% and that is helpful because other websites show 1% and even inside of the 1% the top 0.1% is a lot higher still.  Picture from Inequality.org

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKSpPURMUmc — This video is good at explaining how rich people can get and how much money they have compared to other people.

# data[].attributes.body
This audio is mostly talking about some of the more major graphs and numbers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United States led the world in growth of financial assets last year thanks to tax cuts and booming stock markets, but its distribution of wealth was more unequal than in any other country, according to a study published Wednesday.

An annual tally by the German insurer Allianz of the world's stocks, bonds, cash and other assets, and who owns them, also found that poor countries are no longer catching up with wealthier countries, reversing a trend. For the first time since 2000, there was a decline in the number of people worldwide considered middle class, as measured by their financial holdings.

And the world's super rich are getting richer. The top 1 percent own 44 percent of financial assets, and the share is growing. "The super rich do indeed seem to be moving further and further away from the rest of society," the Allianz study said.

The pandemic will only exacerbate the gulf between rich and poor, the authors of the study said. Declines in world trade will hurt developing countries the most, and poor people suffer more from strains on health care systems and public schools.

Per capital wealth in the United States grew more than 13 percent in 2019, to $245,000, in part because affluent Americans saved their tax cuts rather then spending the money, and because Americans are more likely than people in most other countries to buy stocks. The United States ranked ahead of Switzerland and Singapore in per capita wealth, but it was dead last in Allianz's index ranking of wealth equality (a list headed by Slovakia, Belgium and Japan).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
United States is the richest country in the world, and it has the biggest wealth gap.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States led the world in growth of financial assets last year thanks to tax cuts and booming stock markets, but its distribution of wealth was more unequal than in any other country, according to a study published Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Like many of the virus's hardest hit victims, the United States went into the COVID-19 pandemic wracked by preexisting conditions. A fraying public health infrastructure, inadequate medical supplies, an employer-based health insurance system perversely unsuited to the moment-these and other afflictions are surely contributing to the death toll. But in addressing the causes and consequences of this pandemic -and its cruelly uneven impact-the elephant in the room is extreme income inequality.

How big is this elephant? A staggering $50 trillion. That is how much the upward redistribution of income has cost American workers over the past several decades.

This is not some back-of-the-napkin approximation. According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone. That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP-enough to more than double median income-enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month. Every single year.

Price and Edwards calculate that the cumulative tab for our four-decade-long experiment in radical inequality had grown to over $47 trillion from 1975 through 2018. At a recent pace of about $2.5 trillion a year, that number we estimate crossed the $50 trillion mark by early 2020. That's $50 trillion that would have gone into the paychecks of working Americans had inequality held constant-$50 trillion that would have built a far larger and more prosperous economy-$50 trillion that would have enabled the vast majority of Americans to enter this pandemic far more healthy, resilient, and financially secure.

As the RAND report [whose research was funded by the Fair Work Center which co-author David Rolf is a board member of] demonstrates, a rising tide most definitely did not lift all boats. It didn't even lift most of them, as nearly all of the benefits of growth these past 45 years were captured by those at the very top. And as the American economy grows radically unequal it is holding back economic growth itself.

Even inequality is meted out unequally. Low-wage workers and their families, disproportionately people of color, suffer from far higher rates of asthma, hypertension, diabetes, and other COVID-19 comorbidities; yet they are also far less likely to have health insurance, and far more likely to work in "essential" industries with the highest rates of coronavirus exposure and transmission. It is no surprise then, according to the CDC, that COVID-19 inflicts "a disproportionate burden of illness and death among racial and ethnic minority groups." But imagine how much safer, healthier, and empowered all American workers might be if that $50 trillion had been paid out in wages instead of being funneled into corporate profits and the offshore accounts of the super-rich. Imagine how much richer and more resilient the American people would be. Imagine how many more lives would have been saved had our people been more resilient.

It is easy to see how such a deadly virus, and the draconian measures required to contain it, might spark an economic depression. But look straight into the eyes of the elephant in the room, and it is impossible to deny the many ways in which our extreme inequality-an exceptionally American affliction-has made the virus more deadly and its economic consequences more dire than in any other advanced nation. Why is our death toll so high and our unemployment rate so staggeringly off the charts? Why was our nation so unprepared, and our economy so fragile? Why have we lacked the stamina and the will to contain the virus like most other advanced nations? The reason is staring us in the face: a stampede of rising inequality that has been trampling the lives and livelihoods of the vast majority of Americans, year after year after year.

Of course, America's chronic case of extreme inequality is old news. Many other studies have documented this trend, chronicled its impact, and analyzed its causes. But where others have painted the picture in terms of aggregate shares of GDP, productivity growth, or other cold, hard statistics, the RAND report brings the inequality price tag directly home by denominating it in dollars-not just the aggregate $50 trillion figure, but in granular demographic detail. For example, are you a typical Black man earning $35,000 a year? You are being paid at least $26,000 a year less than you would have had income distributions held constant. Are you a college-educated, prime-aged, full-time worker earning $72,000? Depending on the inflation index used (PCE or CPI, respectively), rising inequality is costing you between $48,000 and $63,000 a year. But whatever your race, gender, educational attainment, urbanicity, or income, the data show, if you earn below the 90th percentile, the relentlessly upward redistribution of income since 1975 is coming out of your pocket.

As Price and Edwards explain, from 1947 through 1974, real incomes grew close to the rate of per capita economic growth across all income levels. That means that for three decades, those at the bottom and middle of the distribution saw their incomes grow at about the same rate as those at the top. This was the era in which America built the world's largest and most prosperous middle class, an era in which inequality between income groups steadily shrank (even as shocking inequalities between the sexes and races largely remained). But around 1975, this extraordinary era of broadly shared prosperity came to an end. Since then, the wealthiest Americans, particularly those in the top 1 percent and 0.1 percent, have managed to capture an ever-larger share of our nation's economic growth-in fact, almost all of it-their real incomes skyrocketing as the vast majority of Americans saw little if any gains.

What if American prosperity had continued to be broadly shared- how much more would a typical worker be earning today? Once the data are compiled, answering these questions is fairly straightforward. Price and Edwards look at real taxable income from 1975 to 2018. They then compare actual income distributions in 2018 to a counterfactual that assumes incomes had continued to keep pace with growth in per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP)-a 118% increase over the 1975 income numbers. Whether measuring inflation using the more conservative Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index (PCE) or the more commonly cited Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U-RS), the results are striking.

At every income level up to the 90th percentile, wage earners are now being paid a fraction of what they would have had inequality held constant. For example, at the median individual income of $36,000, workers are being shortchanged by $21,000 a year-$28,000 when using the CPI-an amount equivalent to an additional $10.10 to $13.50 an hour. But according to Price and Edwards, this actually understates the impact of rising inequality on low- and middle-income workers, because much of the gains at the bottom of the distribution were largely "driven by an increase in hours not an increase in wages." To adjust for this, along with changing patterns of workforce participation, the researchers repeat their analysis for full-year, full-time, prime-aged workers (age 25 to 54). These results are even more stark: "Unlike the growth patterns in the 1950s and 60s," write Price and Edwards, "the majority of full-time workers did not share in the economic growth of the last forty years."

On average, extreme inequality is costing the median income full-time worker about $42,000 a year. Adjusted for inflation using the CPI, the numbers are even worse: half of all full-time workers (those at or below the median income of $50,000 a year) now earn less than half what they would have had incomes across the distribution continued to keep pace with economic growth. And that's per worker, not per household. At both the 25th and 50th percentiles, households comprised of a married couple with one full-time worker earned thousands of dollars less in 2018 dollars than a comparable household in 1975-and $50,000 and $66,000 less respectively than if inequality had held constant-a predicament compounded by the rising costs of maintaining a dignified middle-class life. According to Oren Cass, executive director of the conservative think tank American Compass, the median male worker needed 30 weeks of income in 1985 to pay for housing, healthcare, transportation, and education for his family. By 2018, that " Cost of Thriving Index" had increased to 53 weeks (more weeks than in an actual year). But the counterfactual reveals an even starker picture: In 2018, the combined income of married households with two full-time workers was barely more than what the income of a single-earner household would have earned had inequality held constant. Two-income families are now working twice the hours to maintain a shrinking share of the pie, while struggling to pay housing, healthcare, education, childcare, and transportations costs that have grown at two to three times the rate of inflation.

This dramatic redistribution of income from the majority of workers to those at the very top is so complete that even at the 95th percentile, most workers are still earning less than they would have had inequality held constant. It is only at the 99th percentile that we see incomes growing faster than economic growth: at 171 percent of the rate of per capita GDP. But even this understates the disparity. "The average income growth for the top one percent was substantially higher," write Price and Edwards, "at more than 300 percent of the real per capita GDP rate." The higher your income, the larger your percentage gains. As a result, the top 1 percent's share of total taxable income has more than doubled, from 9 percent in 1975, to 22 percent in 2018, while the bottom 90 percent have seen their income share fall, from 67 percent to 50 percent. This represents a direct transfer of income-and over time, wealth-from the vast majority of working Americans to a handful at the very top.

But given the changing demographic composition of the U.S. workforce, these topline numbers can only tell part of the story. The U.S. workforce is now better educated and more urban than it was in 1975. It is also far less white and male-with white men falling from over 60 percent of the prime-aged workforce in 1974 to less than 45 percent by 2018. These changes are important, because while there was far more equality between the income distributions in 1975, there was also more inequality within them-notably in regard to gender and race.

For example, in 1975, the median income of white women was only 31 percent of that of white men; by 2018 white women were earning 68 percent as much. Likewise, the median income of Black men as a share of their white counterparts' earnings rose from 74 percent in 1975, to 80 percent in 2018. Clearly, income disparities between races, and especially between men and women, have narrowed since 1975, and that is a good thing. But unfortunately, much of the narrowing we see is more an artifact of four decades of flat or declining wages for low- and middle-income white men than it is of substantial gains for women and nonwhites.

Much has been made about white male grievance in the age of Trump, and given their falling or stagnant real incomes, one can understand why some white men might feel aggrieved. White, non-urban, non-college educated men have the slowest wage growth in every demographic category. But to blame their woes on competition from women or minorities would be to completely miss the target. In fact, white men still earn more than white women at all income distributions, and substantially more than most non-white men and women. Only Asian-American men earn higher. Yet there is no moral or practical justification for the persistence of any income disparity based on race or gender.

The counterfactuals in the table above appear vastly unequal because they extrapolate from the indefensible 1975-levels of race and gender inequality; they assume that inequality remained constant both between income distributions and within them-that women and nonwhites had not narrowed the income gap with white men. But surely, this cannot be our goal. In an economy freed from race and gender bias, and that shares the fruits of growth broadly across all income distributions, the most appropriate counterfactual for all the groups in this table would be the aggregate counterfactual for "All Groups": a median income of $57,000 a year for all adults with positive earnings ($92,000 for full-time prime-age workers). That would be the income for all workers at the 50th percentile, regardless of race or gender, had race and gender inequality within distributions been eliminated, and inequality between distributions not grown. By this measure we can see that in real dollars, women and nonwhites have actually lost more income to rising inequality than white men, because starting from their disadvantaged positions in 1975, they had far more to potentially gain. Per capita GDP grew by 118 percent over the following four decades, so there was plenty of new income to spread around. That the majority of white men have benefited from almost none of this growth isn't because they have lost income to women or minorities; it's because they've lost it to their largely white male counterparts in the top 1 percent who have captured nearly all of the income growth for themselves. According to economist Thomas Piketty, men accounted for 85 percent of the top income centile in the mid-2010s-and while he doesn't specify, these men are overwhelmingly white.

Thus, by far the single largest driver of rising inequality these past forty years has been the dramatic rise in inequality between white men.

The data on income distribution by educational attainment is equally revealing, in that it calls the lie on the notion of a "skills gap"-a dominant narrative that has argued that rising inequality is largely a consequence of a majority of American workers failing to acquire the higher skills necessary to compete in our modern global economy. If workers were better educated, this narrative argues, they would earn more money. Problem solved.

Indeed, at every income distribution, the education premium has increased since 1975, with the income of college graduates rising faster than their less educated counterparts. But this growing gap is more a consequence of falling incomes for workers without a college degree than it is of rising real incomes for most workers with one-for not only have workers without a degree secured none of the gains from four decades of economic growth, below the 50th percentile they've actually seen their real incomes decline. College educated workers are doing better. The median real income for full-time workers with a four-year degree has grown from $55,000 a year in 1975 to $72,000 in 2018. But that still falls far short of the $120,000 they'd be earning had incomes grown with per capita GDP. Even at the 90th percentile, a college educated full-time worker making $191,000 a year is earning less than 78 percent what they would have had inequality held constant.

The reality is that American workers have never been more highly educated. In 1975, only 67 percent of the adult US workforce had a high school education or better, while just 15 percent had earned a four-year college degree. By 2018, 91 percent of adult workers had completed high school, while the percentage of college graduates in the workforce had more than doubled to 34 percent. In raw numbers, the population of adult workers with a high school education or less has fallen since 1975, while the number of workers with a four-year degree has more than quadrupled.

It is impossible to argue that a "skills gap" is responsible for rising income inequality when the rate of educational attainment is rising faster than the rate of growth in productivity or per capita GDP. Yes, workers with college degrees are doing better than those without; the economy we've built over the past 45 years has been more unequal to some than to others. But below the 90th percentile, even college graduates are falling victim to a decades-long trend of radical inequality that is robbing them of most of the benefits of economic growth.

The iron rule of market economies is that we all do better when we all do better: when workers have more money, businesses have more customers, and hire more workers. Seventy percent of our economy is dependent on consumer spending; the faster and broader real incomes grow, the stronger the demand for the products and services American businesses produce. This is the virtuous cycle through which workers and businesses prospered together in the decades immediately following World War II. But as wages stagnated after 1975, so too did consumer demand; and as demand slowed, so did the economy. A 2014 report from the OECD estimated that rising income inequality knocked as much 9 points off U.S. GDP growth over the previous two decades-a deficit that has surely grown over the past six years as inequality continued to climb. That's about $2 trillion worth of GDP that's being frittered away, year after year, through policy choices that intentionally constrain the earning power of American workers.

COVID-19 may have triggered our current crisis, but it wasn't its only cause. For even had our political leaders done everything right in the moment, our response to the pandemic would still have been mired in the footprint of extreme inequality: a $50 trillion upward redistribution of wealth and income-$297,000 per household-that has left our families, our economy, and our democracy far less capable of fighting this virus than in other advanced nations. This is the America that stumbled into the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic catastrophe it unleashed: An America with an economy $2 trillion smaller and a workforce $2.5 trillion a year poorer than they otherwise would be had inequality held constant since 1975. This is an America in which 47 percent of renters are cost burdened, in which 40 percent of households can't cover a $400 emergency expense, in which half of Americans over age 55 have no retirement savings at all. This is an America in which 28 million have no health insurance, and in which 44 million underinsured Americans can't afford the deductibles or copays to use the insurance they have. This is an America that recklessly rushed to reopen its economy in the midst of a deadly pandemic because businesses were too fragile to survive an extended closure and workers too powerless and impoverished to defy the call back to work.

There are some who blame the current plight of working Americans on structural changes in the underlying economy-on automation, and especially on globalization. According to this popular narrative, the lower wages of the past 40 years were the unfortunate but necessary price of keeping American businesses competitive in an increasingly cutthroat global market. But in fact, the $50 trillion transfer of wealth the RAND report documents has occurred entirely within the American economy, not between it and its trading partners. No, this upward redistribution of income, wealth, and power wasn't inevitable; it was a choice-a direct result of the trickle-down policies we chose to implement since 1975.

We chose to cut taxes on billionaires and to deregulate the financial industry. We chose to allow CEOs to manipulate share prices through stock buybacks, and to lavishly reward themselves with the proceeds. We chose to permit giant corporations, through mergers and acquisitions, to accumulate the vast monopoly power necessary to dictate both prices charged and wages paid. We chose to erode the minimum wage and the overtime threshold and the bargaining power of labor. For four decades, we chose to elect political leaders who put the material interests of the rich and powerful above those of the American people.

Other nations are suffering less from COVID-19 because they made better choices, and the good news is that America can, too. Economics is a choice. We could choose to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 or $20 an hour and peg it to productivity growth like in the decades before 1975. We could choose to revalue work so that the majority of Americans once again earn time-and-a-half pay for every hour worked over 40 hours a week. We could choose to provide affordable high-quality healthcare, childcare, and education to all Americans, while modernizing our social insurance and retirement systems so that contract and gig workers aren't left out and left behind. We could choose to make it easier for workers to organize, and to defend the rights and interests of those who can't. We could choose to build a more equitable, resilient, and prosperous America-an America that grows its economy by intentionally including every American in it. But given our nation's radical redistribution of wealth and power these past 40 years, it won't be easy.

What American workers need are multiple simultaneous experiments in rebuilding worker power, from tweaking existing labor laws to sectoral bargaining to the creation of whole new trade associations and broad-based not-for-profit organizations. For example, imagine an AARP for all working Americans, relentlessly dedicated to both raising wages and reducing the cost of thriving-a mass membership organization so large and so powerful that our political leaders won't dare to look the other way. Only then, by matching power with power, can we clear a path to enacting the laws and policies necessary to ensure that that trickle-down economics never threatens our health, safety, and welfare again.

There is little evidence that the current administration has any interest in dealing with this crisis. Our hope is that a Biden administration would be historically bold. But make no mistake that both our political and economic systems will collapse absent solutions that scale to the enormous size of the problem. The central goal of our nation's economic policy must be nothing less than the doubling of median income. We must dramatically narrow inequality between distributions while eliminating racial and gender inequalities within them. This is the standard to which we should hold leaders from both parties. To advocate for anything less would be cowardly or dishonest or both.

Contact us at letters@time.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%-And That's Made the U.S. Less Secure

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A report shows that a $50 trillion redistribution of income to benefit the richest has made America less healthy, resilient, and secure

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While income inequality is a fundamental component of the U.S. capitalist economy, a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 61% of Americans think that it has gone too far. Today, the top 1% of earners in the United States account for about 20% of the country's total income annually. Meanwhile, the lowest-earning quarter of Americans account for just 3.7% of income every year.

Nationwide, it takes an annual income of $538,926 to be among the top 1%. Among the approximately 1.4 million taxpayers who meet this threshold, the average annual income is about $1.7 million - about 20 times the average income of $82,535 among all taxpayers. Wealth, however, is far more concentrated in certain parts of the country than in others, and as a result, the amount it takes to be among the top 1% in each state varies considerably.
Race matters: Minimum wage hikes: Increases in three states, 21 localities to aid low-paid workers slammed by COVID-19 Gap between Black and white homeownership is vast, new report finds
Using adjusted gross income percentile data for the 2017 tax year from the IRS, 24/7 Wall St. determined how much you need to make to be in the 1% in every state. All data is derived from federal 1040 individual tax returns and is inflation adjusted for 2019. The annual income floor needed to be in the 1% ranges from less than $350,000 in some states to well more than double that in others.
1. Alabama
Across populations, incomes tend to rise with educational attainment. As a result, incomes tend to be higher in states that are home to a large share of college educated adults. Indeed, many of the best-educated states are also those with the highest income threshold to be among the top 1% of earners. Here is a complete list of America's most and least educated states.

Of course, just as incomes vary nationwide, incomes also vary within states. The income necessary to be among the top 1% in each state is often driven up by a handful of wealthy towns or neighborhoods. Concentrated pockets of wealth drive up average overall incomes in every state. Here is a look at the richest town in every state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $390,066 (7th lowest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,011,643 (9th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 15.5% (19th lowest)
2. Alaska
* Avg. income among all tax filers: $65,249 (5th lowest)

In Alabama, tax filers earning $390,066 rank in the top 1% of all earners, the seventh lowest threshold of any state. Filers in the 1% in Alabama earn an average of $1.0 million and pay $265,363 in federal income taxes, the ninth and 10th smallest such figures of any state's top 1% of earners.

* Top 1% earn at least: $433,070 (21st lowest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $934,419 (6th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 11.9% (2nd lowest)
3. Arizona
* Avg. income among all tax filers: $78,641 (18th highest)

In Alaska, residents need to earn at least $433,070 to rank among the top 1% of earners. Among the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers in the state, the average income is $934,419 - or about $855,000 more than the average income among all taxpayers.

* Top 1% earn at least: $448,795 (25th lowest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,235,517 (22nd highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 17% (17th highest)
4. Arkansas
* Avg. income among all tax filers: $72,696 (20th lowest)

The average income across all taxpayers in Arizona is $72,696. Among the top 1% of earners in the state - those earning at least $448,795 - the average income is $1.2 million. The roughly 28,000 taxpayers who comprise the state's 1% earned about 17% of all money made in the state annually.

* Top 1% earn at least: $377,895 (5th lowest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,483,488 (13th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 21.9% (9th highest)
5. California
* Avg. income among all tax filers: $67,841 (10th lowest)

In Arkansas, the income threshold for the top 1% is just $377,895, about $161,000 less than the national 1% threshold and the fifth lowest of any state. While the threshold for the top 1% is lower in Arkansas than in the majority of states, the average filer in the 1% earns $1.5 million - the 13th highest average income of the 1% of any state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $659,503 (5th highest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $2,195,775 (6th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 23% (7th highest)
6. Colorado
* Avg. income among all tax filers: $95,494 (5th highest)

With an average statewide income of about $95,500, California is one of the wealthiest states in the country. The high average income in the state is due in part to a high concentration of high-wealth individuals. The threshold for being among California's 1% is $659,503, higher than in all but four other states. Among the top 1% of earners in the state, the average annual income is $2.2 million.

* Top 1% earn at least: $563,672 (8th highest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,554,182 (12th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 17.6% (15th highest)
7. Connecticut
* Avg. income among all tax filers: $88,153 (11th highest)

In Colorado, residents need to earn at least $563,672 a year to rank in the top 1% of earners. The state 1% income threshold is nearly $25,000 more than the national threshold and the eighth highest of any state. One factor pushing incomes higher in Colorado is likely high educational attainment. Among adults in the state, 41.7% have at least a bachelor's degree, the second largest share of any state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $827,194 (the highest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $3,060,989 (the highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 27% (4th highest)
8. Delaware
* Avg. income among all tax filers: $113,570 (the highest)

Connecticut residents must earn at least $827,194 a year to rank in the top 1% of earners, the highest threshold of any state. Connecticut's wealthiest earners also have the largest tax burden in the country. The average filer in the top 1% earns $3.1 million and pays $825,611 in federal income taxes, each the largest such figure of any state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $440,228 (23rd lowest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,069,994 (17th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 14.1% (7th lowest)
9. Florida
* Avg. income among all tax filers: $76,151 (23rd highest)

Delaware residents who earn at least $440,228 a year are among the top 1% of earners in the state. Among the state's wealthiest 1%, the average annual income is $1.1 million. Among the state's wealthiest 1%, the average annual income is $1.1 million, 14 times the average annual income across all taxpayers in Delaware of just $76,151.

* Top 1% earn at least: $581,682 (7th highest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $2,347,180 (5th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 28.4% (2nd highest)
Retire early: Do you plan to retire by 50?:10. Georgia Great, but can you cover your health care? Can ordinary Americans find financial independence and stop work by 50?
* Avg. income among all tax filers: $82,535 (14th highest)

Individuals in Florida must earn at least $581,682 a year to rank in the top 1%, the seventh highest threshold of any state. The top 1% of earners in Florida account for 28.4% of all income in the state - the second largest such share - and pay 50.3% of all federal income taxes, the largest share in the country.

* Top 1% earn at least: $501,914 (15th highest)
11. Hawaii
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,420,732 (15th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 19% (12th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $74,744 (24th highest)

The threshold to be in the top 1% of earners in Georgia is an annual income of $501,914, the 15th highest of any state. The top 1% of earners in Georgia account for 19% of all income and 36.3% of all federal income taxes, each the 12th largest such share of any state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $414,599 (13th lowest)
12. Idaho
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,044,728 (14th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 14.1% (9th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $74,204 (23rd lowest)

The top one percent in Hawaii earn a cumulative total of about $6.8 billion annually, or 14.1% of all income earned in the state. As is the case across the U.S. as a whole, the top 1% of earners in Hawaii the top 1% of earners in Hawaii pay a disproportionate share in taxes. The top 1% pay about $1.7 billion in federal income taxed annually, or 28.3% of the total amount collected in the state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $407,393 (10th lowest)
13. Illinois
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,043,184 (13th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 15.2% (16th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $68,702 (13th lowest)

Idaho is one of the lower-income states, with an average annual income among taxpayers of $68,702. It does not take as much money to rank among the wealthiest 1% in the state compared to much of the rest of the country. One-percenters in Idaho earn at least $407,393. In half of all states, the threshold is at least $450,000.

* Top 1% earn at least: $558,831 (9th highest)
14. Indiana
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,639,367 (11th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 19.2% (11th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $85,544 (13th highest)

It takes more to rank among the top 1% of earners in Illinois than in most other states. The 56,000 taxpayers in the state who comprise the 1% earn about $91.8 billion cumulatively per year, or 19.2% of all money made in the state. Illinois's wealthiest residents also pay a disproportionately high share of taxes, accounting for 36.2% of federal income taxes collected in the state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $394,398 (8th lowest)
15. Iowa
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,000,641 (8th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 14.8% (12th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $67,732 (9th lowest)

Indiana residents must earn $394,398 annually to rank in the top 1% - the eighth lowest threshold of any state. The average member of the 1% in Indiana earns $1.0 million a year and pays $269,436 in federal income taxes, approximately $694,000 less in income and $186,000 less in federal income taxes than the national average for the 1%.

* Top 1% earn at least: $402,246 (9th lowest)
16. Kansas
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $978,158 (7th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 13.4% (4th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $73,171 (21st lowest)

The minimum income required to rank among the top 1% of earners in Iowa is $402,246, one of the lowest thresholds among states. Across populations, incomes tend to rise with educational attainment, and in Iowa, just 29% of adults have a bachelor's degree, below the 32.6% share of adults nationwide. States with higher income thresholds for the wealthiest 1% also tend to have higher educational attainment.

* Top 1% earn at least: $450,606 (25th highest)
17. Kentucky
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,173,583 (24th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 15.8% (23rd lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $74,382 (24th lowest)

The threshold for the top 1% of earners in Kansas is $450,606, approximately $88,000 below the national average. The top 1% of earners account for 15.8% of all income in Kansas and 33.1% of all federal income taxes. By comparison, the top 1% of earners nationwide account for 20.5% of all income and 38.3% of all federal income taxes.

* Top 1% earn at least: $377,532 (4th lowest)
18. Louisiana
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $900,198 (5th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 14.1% (8th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $64,051 (4th lowest)

Kentucky is one of the poorest states in the country, and partially as a result, it does not take as much money to rank among the state's 1% than it does in much of the United States. Kentucky is one of only eight states where an income of less than $400,000 is enough to be in the top 1%. It is also one of only seven states where the average annual income among the 1% is less than $1 million.

* Top 1% earn at least: $423,138 (17th lowest)
19. Maine
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,066,004 (15th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 16.1% (25th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $66,342 (6th lowest)

Tax filers in Louisiana need to make at least $423,138 a year to be in the top 1% of earners, about $116,000 below the national threshold. The average tax filer in the top 1% in Louisiana earns $1.1 million a year and pays $293,992 in federal income taxes. By comparison, the average tax filer in the top 1% nationwide earns $1.7 million a year and pays $454,943 in federal income taxes.

* Top 1% earn at least: $389,504 (6th lowest)
20. Maryland
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $871,388 (4th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 13% (3rd lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $66,809 (7th lowest)

Maine is one of only eight states where it takes less than $400,000 to be in the top 1% of earners. Cumulatively, the state's one-percenters earn $5.3 billion a year, or 13% of all income, more than double the amount the bottom 25% in the state earn.

* Top 1% earn at least: $532,093 (11th highest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,355,956 (19th highest)
21. Massachusetts
* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 15.3% (17th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $88,763 (9th highest)

Every taxpayer in Maryland who ranks among the top 1% of earners makes over half a million dollars a year. On average, one-percenters in the state earn nearly $1.4 million annually.

Cumulatively, one-percenters in Maryland earn 15.3% of all income, and they shoulder a disproportionate share of the state's tax burden, accounting for 29.3% of all federal income taxes paid in the state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $728,272 (2nd highest)
22. Michigan
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $2,582,633 (3rd highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 23.7% (6th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $109,082 (2nd highest)

Massachusetts is one of the most affluent states in the country, with an average income among all taxpayers of $109,082, the third highest of any state. To be in the top 1% of earners, a tax filer in 2018 needed to have an income of at least $728,272, a higher threshold than all states but one. Adults with a higher educational attainment are much more likely to earn higher incomes, and the state has among the highest shares of adults with a bachelor's degree, at 44.5% of adults, compared to a national share of 32.6%.

* Top 1% earn at least: $435,271 (22nd lowest)
23. Minnesota
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,203,724 (25th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 16.7% (20th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $72,227 (19th lowest)

In Michigan, the top 1% of earners account for 16.7% of all income in the state. Meanwhile, the bottom quarter of all earners account for just 3.7% of all earnings. The average income among the wealthiest 1% Michigan residents is $1.2 million - nearly 17 times the average income among all taxpayers in the state of $72,227.

* Top 1% earn at least: $522,444 (13th highest)
24. Mississippi
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,399,463 (16th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 16.3% (23rd highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $85,628 (12th highest)

The income floor for the top 1% of earners in Minnesota is $522,444, nearly in line with the national 1% threshold of $538,926. The top 1% of earners in Minnesota account for 16.3% of all income in the state and 31.5% of all federal income taxes - lower than the corresponding national shares of 20.5% and 38.3%, respectively.

* Top 1% earn at least: $326,182 (2nd lowest)
25. Missouri
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $751,141 (2nd lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 13.4% (5th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $55,999 (the lowest)

In Mississippi, the average annual income among tax filers is just $55,999, the lowest of any state and approximately $27,000 lower than the national average. Individuals with an annual income of $326,182 in the state rank in the top 1%, a threshold about $213,000 less than the national threshold and the second lowest income floor for the 1% of any state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $419,752 (16th lowest)
26. Montana
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,136,765 (23rd lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 16.3% (24th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $69,882 (16th lowest)

It takes about $420,000 in annual income to be among the highest 1% of earners in Missouri, a lower threshold than in most states. The average income among one-percenters in the state is $1.1 million, about 16 times the average income of $69,882 among all earners.

* Top 1% earn at least: $416,874 (15th lowest)
27. Nebraska
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,066,180 (16th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 15.6% (20th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $68,554 (12th lowest)

The threshold for the top 1% of income in Montana is $416,874, about $122,000 less than the national figure. Tax filers in the top 1% earn an average of $1.1 million a year and pay $270,672 in income taxes. By comparison, the top 1% of earners nationwide report $1.7 million in income and $454,942 in federal income taxes.

* Top 1% earn at least: $431,616 (20th lowest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,123,566 (19th lowest)
28. Nevada
* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 15.1% (14th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $74,393 (25th lowest)

The top 1% of earners in Nebraska make $9.2 billion cumulatively per year, or about 15.1% of all income in the state. Meanwhile, the bottom 25% of earners account for just 4.7% of all money earned.

As is the case nationwide, Nebraska's 1% shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden, paying about 32.2% of all income federal taxes collected a year.

* Top 1% earn at least: $469,328 (18th highest)
29. New Hampshire
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,864,084 (8th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 24.3% (5th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $76,757 (21st highest)

While in Nevada the income threshold for the top 1% is $469,326, below the national threshold of $538,926, the average income among the top 1% of earners is $1.9 million - above the $1.7 million national average. The top 1% of earners in Nevada account for 24.3% of all income in the state and 45.6% of all federal income taxes paid, the fifth and fourth largest such shares of any state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $510,178 (14th highest)
30. New Jersey
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,453,974 (14th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 16.4% (21st highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $88,867 (8th highest)

The income threshold to be among the top 1% of earners in New Hampshire is $510,178, higher than in the majority of states. The average annual income among one-percenters in the state of $1.5 million is also higher than in most states. Across populations, incomes tend to rise with educational attainment, and in New Hampshire, 36.8% of adults have a bachelor's degree, compared to the 32.6% share of adults nationwide.

* Top 1% earn at least: $701,005 (4th highest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $2,002,544 (7th highest)
31. New Mexico
* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 19.6% (10th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $102,186 (3rd highest)

New Jersey is one of only three states where the average annual income among taxpayers is over $100,000. It takes an annual income of over $700,000 to rank among the state's top 1% of earners. Additionally, the top 1% cumulatively account for nearly 20% of all income in the state.

The state's wealthiest residents also pay more in income taxes, accounting for nearly 35% of all federal income tax payments.

* Top 1% earn at least: $341,111 (3rd lowest)
32. New York
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $840,305 (3rd lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 14% (6th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $60,109 (3rd lowest)

New Mexico is one of the lowest-income states in the country, with the average taxpayer earning $60,109 a year. It also has one of the lowest thresholds to be among the top 1% of earners among states at $341,111. In the vast majority of states, an annual income of at least $400,000 is needed to be among the top 1%.

* Top 1% earn at least: $702,559 (3rd highest)
33. North Carolina
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $2,894,085 (2nd highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 29.3% (the highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $98,941 (4th highest)

New York is one of only four states where it takes over $700,000 in annual income to be among the top 1% of earners. The state's high threshold is driven up by New York City, where many of the world's wealthiest have homes and there is a concentration of high paying jobs. One-percenters in New York earn $2.9 million on average, and their combined earnings account for 29.3% of all income in the state. Meanwhile, the bottom quarter of earners in the state account for just 2.9% of all income.

* Top 1% earn at least: $453,976 (24th highest)
34. North Dakota
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,131,863 (22nd lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 16% (25th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $70,705 (17th lowest)

The top 1% of earners in North Carolina earn at least $453,976, which is near the middle of the 50 states. Collectively, the state's top 1% of earners account for about one-third of the state's total income, which is also in the middle of all states. Nationwide, the top 1% of earners account for 38.3% of the national's total income.

* Top 1% earn at least: $462,352 (21st highest)
35. Ohio
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,131,705 (21st lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 14.3% (10th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $79,305 (16th highest)

North Dakota has a more even distribution of income compared to other states. The top 25% of earners in North Dakota state account for 78.5% of the state's total Federal income taxes paid, the lowest share of any state. The state has a lower share of households with incomes of less than $10,000 per year and a lower share of households earning more than $200,000 compared to the comparable national shares of households.

* Top 1% earn at least: $412,919 (12th lowest)
36. Oklahoma
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,020,320 (10th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 14.8% (13th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $68,950 (15th lowest)

It takes an annual income of at least $412,919 to be among the top 1% of earners in Ohio, a lower threshold than in most states. Across populations, incomes tend to rise with educational attainment, and in Ohio, just 29% of adults have a bachelor's degree, below the 32.6% share of adults nationwide. States with a higher top 1% income threshold also tend to have higher educational attainment.

* Top 1% earn at least: $424,529 (18th lowest)
37. Oregon
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,117,765 (18th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 16.4% (22nd highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $68,348 (11th lowest)

Among the top 1% of earners in Oklahoma - those earning at least $424,529 per year - the average annual income is $1.1 million, about 16 times the average income across all taxpayers in the state. Cumulatively, one-percenters in Oklahoma account for 16.4% of all income in the state, while the bottom 25% account for just just 4.2% of income.

* Top 1% earn at least: $465,936 (20th highest)
38. Pennsylvania
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,207,272 (25th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 15.7% (21st lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $76,998 (20th highest)

Oregon residents must earn at least $465,936 to rank in the top 1% of earners, approximately $73,000 less than the national threshold for the 1%. The average earner in the 1% in Oregon has a reported income of $1.2 million, compared to the $1.7 million nationwide average.

* Top 1% earn at least: $491,997 (16th highest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,329,913 (20th highest)
39. Rhode Island
* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 17% (19th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $78,385 (19th highest)

The average annual income among the top 1% of earners in Pennsylvania - those earning at least $465,936 per year - is $1.3 million. Meanwhile, the average annual income among all taxpayers in the state is $78,385.

Though one-percenters earn 17% all income in Pennsylvania, they pay over one-third of all federal income taxes in the state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $457,372 (22nd highest)
40. South Carolina
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,214,783 (24th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 15.9% (24th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $76,632 (22nd highest)

In Rhode Island, the income floor for the top 1% of earners is $457,372, nearly $82,000 less than the national income threshold of $538,926. Rhode Island one-percenters account for 15.9% of all income in the state and 31.2% of all federal income taxes paid. By comparison, the top 1% of earners nationwide account for 20.5% of all income and 38.3% of all federal income tax.

* Top 1% earn at least: $415,810 (14th lowest)
41. South Dakota
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,034,585 (12th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 15.4% (18th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $67,102 (8th lowest)

To be one of the top 1% earners, a South Carolina resident would need to have an annual income of $415,810, the 14th lowest threshold among states. There is a steep dropoff in income between the state's hyper-wealthy and those who are "just" very wealthy. To be in the top 5% of earners, one needs to have an income of at least $183,102.

* Top 1% earn at least: $455,582 (23rd highest)
42. Tennessee
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,263,238 (21st highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 17% (18th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $74,418 (25th highest)

South Dakota residents earning $455,582 per year or more are among the highest earning 1% in the state. The one-percenters in the state cumulatively account for 17% of all income. Meanwhile, the bottom 25% of earners account for just 0.6% of all income.

* Top 1% earn at least: $441,531 (24th lowest)
43. Texas
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,227,645 (23rd highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 17.8% (14th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $68,944 (14th lowest)

Tennessee residents who earn at least $441,531 are among the top 1% of earners in the state. The average income among the state's one-percenters is $1.2 million, a higher average than in most states. Cumulatively, the state's one-percenters earn 17.8% of all income. Meanwhile, the bottom 25% earn just 0.3% of all income.

* Top 1% earn at least: $550,748 (10th highest)
44. Utah
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,806,554 (9th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 22.1% (8th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $81,734 (15th highest)

While the average annual income among all tax filers in Texas is about the same as the average nationwide - at $81,734 compared to $82,535, respectively - the top 1% of earners are among the wealthiest of any state. The income threshold for the top 1% in Texas is $550,748, the 10th highest of any state. The average income of those in the top 1% is $1.8 million, higher than the $1.7 million national average and the ninth highest of any state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $469,198 (19th highest)
45. Vermont
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,380,676 (18th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 17.5% (16th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $78,979 (17th highest)

The income threshold to rank in the top 1% of earners in Utah is $469,198, about $70,000 less than the national threshold. The average one-percenter in Utah earns $1.4 million a year, less than the $1.7 million national average.

* Top 1% earn at least: $407,661 (11th lowest)
46. Virginia
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,024,754 (11th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 14.4% (11th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $71,068 (18th lowest)

While Vermont is one of the most educated states - 38.7% of adults have a bachelor's degree, the seventh largest share - incomes in the state are relatively low. The average tax filer earns $71,068 a year, approximately $11,000 less than the national average. To qualify for the top 1%, an individual would need to make at least $407,661 a year, about $131,000 less than the national cutoff for the 1%.

* Top 1% earn at least: $529,094 (12th highest)
47. Washington
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,390,139 (17th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 15.7% (22nd lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $88,486 (10th highest)

While Virginia is one of the wealthiest states - the average income among tax filers is $88,486 compared to a national average of $82,535 - the threshold for the 1% is lower than it is for the United States as a whole. The income floor for the 1% in Virginia is $529,094, approximately $10,000 less than the national figure of $538,926.

* Top 1% earn at least: $585,748 (6th highest)
48. West Virginia
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,756,011 (10th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 18.7% (13th highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $94,129 (6th highest)

Washington is one of the wealthiest states in the country. The average annual income among tax filers is $94,129, about $12,000 more than the national average income and sixth highest of any state. To be considered in the top 1% of earners, individuals must have a reported income of at least $585,748 - more than the national average of $538,926 and the sixth highest threshold of any state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $318,831 (the lowest)
49. Wisconsin
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $651,628 (the lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 11.1% (the lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $58,481 (2nd lowest)

West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the country. Some 17.8% of residents live in poverty, the fourth highest poverty rate nationwide, and the average tax filer has a reported income of $58,481, the second lowest of any state. To be considered among the top 1% of earners in West Virginia, individuals need an income of $318,831 - approximately $220,000 less than the national figure and the lowest threshold of any state.

* Top 1% earn at least: $428,490 (19th lowest)
50. Wyoming
* Avg. income of the top 1%: $1,125,867 (20th lowest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 15.2% (15th lowest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $74,199 (22nd lowest)

In Wisconsin, individuals need to earn at $428,490 to rank in the top 1% of earners, about $110,000 less than the national threshold of $538,926. The average annual income among tax filers in the top 1% is $1.1 million, far less than the $1.7 million national figure.

* Top 1% earn at least: $478,292 (17th highest)

* Avg. income of the top 1%: $2,501,169 (4th highest)

* Share of all income earned by the 1%: 27.6% (3rd highest)

* Avg. income among all tax filers: $90,663 (7th highest)

To rank in the top 1% of earners in Wisconsin, individuals need to make $478,292 a year - approximately $60,000 less than the national threshold of $538,926. While the threshold is lower, the state's one-percenters are wealthier than the top 1% of earners in most states. The average one-percenter in Wyoming earns $2.5 million a year, far more than the $1.7 million national average and the fourth most of any state.
24/7 Wall Street is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news and commentary. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.
Methodology

To determine how much you need to make to be in the 1% in every state, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed adjusted gross income percentile data for the 2017 tax year from the IRS. We also calculated the average incomes and average income taxes for earners in the top 1% using total adjusted gross income, total federal income taxes, and number of returns data from the IRS.

All income data was adjusted for inflation using consumer price index data for 2017 and 2019 from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Supplemental data on median income for all earners 16 and over, the percentage of adults with at least a bachelor's degree, and the poverty rate came from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2018 American Community Survey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How much do you need to make to be in the top 1% in every state? Here's the list

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While income inequality is a fundamental component of the U.S. capitalist economy, a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 61% of Americans think that it has gone too far. Today, the top 1% of earners in the United States account for about 20% of the country's total income annually.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To be considered "rich," Americans say you need a net worth of at least $2.3 million.

That's according to a recent poll by SeniorLiving.org, which asked 1,000 U.S. adults how much a person would need to have in order to be called "rich." For those still working, you'd need to earn an annual salary of over $300,000 to earn the "rich" title.

In comparison, the median U.S. household income was $60,336 in 2017, according to the latest data available from the U.S. Census. The median net worth is $97,300, according to the Federal Reserve's most recent research, the 2016 survey of consumer finances. The average net worth is significantly higher: $692,100, according to the Federal Reserve.

The responses did vary slightly by generation. Baby boomers (ages 55 to 73) and Gen X (ages 38 to 54), unsurprisingly, named a higher net worth required to be rich, while millennials (ages 21 to 38) gave a slightly lower figure.

Millennials: It takes $2.2 million to be considered rich

Gen X: It takes $2.6 million to be considered rich

Boomers: It takes $2.6 million to be considered rich

The poll's results tracked with a similar survey, the Schwab Modern Wealth Index, which was released earlier this year. About 1,000 adults between the ages of 21 and 75 told Schwab that you needed a net worth of $2.27 million to be considered wealthy.

Regardless of what you think it takes to be rich, don't wait to start building up your wealth. You may not be rich today, but by saving up throughout your life, you can likely achieve real wealth and financial security.

"Building your net worth is a life's journey - it's not something that can happen overnight," says Farnoosh Torabi, personal finance author and host of the "So Money" podcast.

For some, there may be a limit to how much you can do with your money, especially if you have student loans, credit card debt and other monthly expenses. But "getting into the habit of saving" can be really simple and can produce long-term benefits, Torabi explains.

Make saving easy by setting up a regular, automatic transfer from your checking account to a savings account. This doesn't have to be a lot, maybe $5 a day or even $5 a week. "The key is to have it leave your hands before you get a chance to spend it," Torabi says. "Over the course of six months, a year or even just a little bit of saving at a time... [it] will accumulate and it will motivate you to do more."
Don't miss: Self-made millionaire: This is the No. 1 way to get rich-and most young people are not doing it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's how much money Americans say you need to be 'rich'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To be considered "rich," Americans say you need a net worth of at least $2.3 million. That's according to a recent poll by SeniorLiving.org, which asked 1,000 U.S. adults how much a person would need to have in order to be called "rich."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Unequal States of America

Income trends have varied from state to state, and within states. But a pattern is apparent: the growth of top 1% incomes. Explore inequality in this interactive feature.

Average annual income of the top 1%What you need to make to be in the top 1%:

Average income of everyone else (the bottom 99%)

x

The top 1% make times more than the bottom 99%

The top 1% take home % of all the income in .

Share of income captured by the top 1%, 1917-2015

The share of all income held by the top 1% in recent years has approached or surpassed historical highs.

Inside

Metropolitan areas

The , metro area is the most unequal metro area in .

The top 1% make times more than the bottom 99%.

Average income of the top 1%: .

Average income of the bottom 99%: .

Counties

is the most unequal county equivalent in .

The top 1% make times more than the bottom 99%.

Average income of the top 1%: .

Average income of the bottom 99%: .

How does compare with the rest of the country?

ranks # of the 50 states in income inequality, based on the ratio of top 1% to bottom 99% income.

Inequality at the national level

Minimum annual income to be in the top 1%: $421,926

Average annual income of the top 1%: $1,316,985

Average annual income of the bottom 99%: $50,107

Ratio of top 1% to bottom 99%: 26.3x

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Interactive: The Unequal States of America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Unequal States of America Income trends have varied from state to state, and within states. But a pattern is apparent: the growth of top 1% incomes. Explore inequality in this interactive feature.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Inequality has been on the rise across the globe for several decades. Some countries have reduced the numbers of people living in extreme poverty. But economic gaps have continued to grow as the very richest amass unprecedented levels of wealth. Among industrial nations, the United States is by far the most top-heavy, with much greater shares of national wealth and income going to the richest 1 percent than any other country.

Covid-19 and Global Inequality

Access to Covid vaccines has been highly unequal around the globe. As of mid-January 2022, the number of vaccine doses administered per 100 people was almost than 13 times higher in high-income than low-income countries, according to data from the WHO and the World Bank. This greed-driven global vaccine gap has made the spread of the infection across borders even more difficult.

The economic toll of the pandemic has also been highly unequal. Oxfam reports that from March 18, 2020 to the end of 2020, global billionaire wealth increased by $3.9 trillion. By contrast, global workers' combined earnings fell by $3.7 trillion, according to the International Labor Organization, as millions lost their jobs around the world.

Global Wealth Inequality

According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report , in 2022 the world's richest 1 percent, those with more than $1 million, owned 45.8 percent of all the world's wealth. Their data also show that adults with less than $10,000 in wealth make up 52.5 percent of the world's population but hold just 1.2 percent of global wealth . Individuals owning over $100,000 in assets make up 13.1 percent of the global population but own 85.2 percent of global wealth. Credit Suisse defines "wealth" as the marketable value of financial assets plus non-financial assets (principally housing and land), minus debts.

"Ultra high net worth individuals" - the wealth management industry's term for people worth more than $30 million - hold an astoundingly disproportionate share of global wealth. These wealth owners held 6.5 percent of total global wealth, yet represent only a tiny fraction (0.003%) of the world population, based on Institute for Policy Studies analysis of Capgemini and Credit Suisse wealth data and UN Population Fund population estimates.

The world's 10 richest billionaires, according to Forbes, own an astonishing $1.448 trillion in combined wealth, a sum greater than the total goods and services most nations produce on an annual basis, according to the World Bank. The globe is home to 2,755 billionaires, according to the 2021 Forbes ranking.

Those with extreme wealth have often accumulated their fortunes on the backs of people around the world who work for poor wages and under dangerous conditions. According to Oxfam, the wealth divide between the global billionaires and the bottom half of humanity is steadily growing. Between 2009 and 2018, the number of billionaires it took to equal the wealth of the world's poorest 50 percent fell from 380 to 26.

Capgemini defines a "high net worth individual" as someone with at least $1 million in investment assets (not including their primary residence and consumer goods) . Between 2012 and 2021, the members of the world millionaires club grew by nearly 88 percent, compared to just a 9.7 percent growth rate for the total global population over the same time period. The vast majority of the world's millionaires hold less than $5 million in assets. But the top tier, those with at least $30 million, have expanded their ranks the fastest, according to . Since 2012, the top wealth group of individuals with at least $30 million has increased by 98 percent, nearly doubling their population.

The Capgemini World Wealth Report shows that individuals with between $1 million and $5 million in investment assets account for 90 percent of the millionaire population. But those with more than $5 million hold a large majority of world millionaire wealth, with 56.8 percent in 2021.

The poorest 50 percent of the world population is responsible for just 12 percent of global carbon emissions but is exposed to 75 percent of income losses (relative to what incomes would be in a world without climate change). By contrast, the world's richest 10 percent accounts for close to half of all emissions, but faces just 3 percent of relative income losses, according to analysis by World Inequality Lab .

Global Income Inequality

World Inequality Report data show that the share of national income going to the richest 10 percent has increased in nearly every country. The 10 countries where the richest 10 percent increased their share of the national economic pie the most between 1980-2020 are India, Russia, South Africa, Poland, China, Korea, the United States, Australia, Germany, and Japan. In several of these countries, the sharp increase in inequality has coincided with the rollback of various post-World War II policies aimed at narrowing economic divides.

Rapid economic growth in Asia (particularly China and India) has lifted many people out of extreme poverty. But the global richest 0.1 percent and 1 percent have reaped a much greater share of the economic gains, according to the World Inequality Report. In 2020, the richest 1 percent pocketed 20.6 percent of global income, up 2.8 percentage points since 1980. The top 0.1 percent pocketed 8.59 percent in 2020, up 1.98 percentage points since 1980. These ultra-rich individuals did take a hit in the 2008 financial crisis, but the richest top 0.1 percent have nearly regained the global income share they enjoyed in 2007.

U.S. Wealth Concentration Versus Other Countries

OECD statistics show that the top 1 percent in the United States holds 40.5 percent of national wealth, a far greater share than in other OECD countries. In no other industrial nation does the richest 1 percent own more than 27.1 percent of their country's wealth.

The United States dominates the global population of high net worth individuals, with over 7.4 million individuals owning at least $1 million worth of investable assets (not including their primary residence and consumer goods), according to Capgemini's World Wealth Report . From 2020 to 2021, the United States added 885,000 high net worth individuals to its population, accounting for the largest increase (13.5 percent) among all countries.

China has had rapid growth in this top wealth tier. But while that country has more than four times as many people as the United States, the number of high net worth Americans is 4.8 times greater than the number in China.

The United States is home to more than twice as many adults with at least $50 million in assets as the next seven nations with the most super rich combined. Between 2020 and 2021, the number of Americans in the $50 million-plus club increased by over 30,000 - more than in any other country, according to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report . China is rising rapidly up the ranks, with the number of individuals in this ultra-rich club jumping from 9,555 in 2017 to 32,706 in 2021.

The United States has more wealth than any other nation. But the top-heavy distribution of that wealth leaves typical American adults with far less wealth than their counterparts in other industrial nations, according to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our world's deepest pockets-"ultra high net worth individuals"-hold an astounding share of global wealth, and inequality is rampant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For decades, a gap has been growing between the rich and poor in advanced economies, especially the United States. Then the coronavirus pandemic struck, costing over a million lives globally by the end of October 2020 and setting off the worst global recession in nearly a century. The people most vulnerable to a health and economic shock have been hit the hardest.

Now at a time of acute health and economic crisis, widening divisions are raising moral, social, economic, and political challenges. Many experts argue that longstanding US policies that widened inequality have also exacerbated the pandemic's impact. As the United States and other countries strive to rebuild their economies, governments have an opening to alleviate unfair economic disparities and improve access to opportunities.

This guide draws together research from the world's leading experts on inequality trends and causes within countries and a list of available policy options to mitigate the growing gap (mostly for the United States, with lessons applicable to other advanced countries).
Most of the research below comes from the Peterson Institute 2019 conference on "Combating Inequality," later work from attending experts, and other PIIE publications. Read also "We Have the Tools to Reverse the Rise in Inequality," by conference organizers Olivier Blanchard (PIIE) and Dani Rodrik (Harvard University), and their book of essays by conference participants, Combating Inequality: Rethinking Government's Role, published by MIT Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For decades, a gap has been growing between the rich and poor in advanced economies, especially the United States. Then the coronavirus pandemic struck, costing over a million lives globally by the end of October 2020 and setting off the worst global recession in nearly a century.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From about 1937 to 1947, a period dubbed as the " Great Compression" - income inequality in the United States fell dramatically. Highly progressive New Deal taxation, the strengthening of unions, and regulation of the National War Labor Board during World War II raised the income of the poor and working class and lowered that of top earners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Look At Income Inequality In The United States | TIME

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Growing Wealth Inequality In The World And America