Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Childers.Paula AT epamail.epa.gov]

since you raised the notion of semantics, "top 1% of [U.S.] taxpayers"
(as per your article , written, I might add, by the Heritage Foundation'
s president as an apologia for tax cuts to the rich)  I doubt comes
close to top 1% of the world. In case you hadn't noticed, there are
filthy rich people in other countries too.  And I'd be willing to bet
there are a number of people even just within the US whose fortunes and
power are so well concealed that they will never make it onto Forbes'
list, even though they might very well be near the top.

I'm not debating that Bush is stinking rich, or that he was raised by
money and given privilege. I would debate whether he's actually rich
*enough* (or smart enough) to be more than a puppet for the hardcore
global financiers and power brokers.



It's semantics at this point. I consider anyone in the top 1% (all
60,000,000 of us) to be among the richest people in the world, and
therefore I am still convinced that Barbara Bush, her parents, and her
direct kin are absolutely among the richest in the world.

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2000/december/her_onepercent.htm
According to this source: "How much do you have to make per year to be a
One Percenter? $10 million? $5 million? $1 million? Not even close. Try
$208,000-which, if you think about it, is well within reach of a lot of
folks, especially dual-income professional couples who invest wisely."
This
article also says that "executives or managers" are typically in the top
1%.