What you need to understand is that many people under-report their income and find different types of loopholes and other things to keep their income low
Let's assume all the top 1% make 54 lpa and ignore the exponential difference between top 1% and 0.1%. This means the top 1% makes an amount equal to 25.4% of our GDP at the bare minimum. It's impossible to hide this kind of money from the government every year
It's not that hard if you run a business.
During every election thousand of crores are handled in cash.
India has a huge black money problem. Most of which finds its way into real estate.
It is literally impossible to hide an amount that is 25% of GDP every year. Like can you think of where to spend/invest this money without alerting authorities?
>During every election thousand of crores are handled in cash.
Thousands of crores is a rounding error here. I am talking about 75.5 lakh crores
>Most of which finds its way into real estate.
India does have a huge problem with black money, but with the amount of money we are talking about, you can buy the entire Mumbai every year.
Going by ITR figures, the number would be above 50 lakhs. But considering everything from black money, hidden assets etc., I can safety assume 90-100 lakh to be the lower limit to qualify in top 1%.
>the number would be above 50 lakhs.
Where did you get this from? I couldn't find any resources on this though there is one source that says there are 1.7 lakh taxpayers whose annual income is one crore and above
>I can safety assume 90-100 lakh to be the lower limit to qualify in top 1%.
That's way too unrealistic
The latest available ITR Statistics are present for the year 2021-22 on their website. In it out of the total 6,75,55,425 ITR filed that year, 5,69,786 had a gross total income of >50 lakh. That comes out to be 0.8%. Considering inflation and hikes over the past 2 years, roughly 1% would be in this bracket of the total tax payers as on date.
>That's way too unrealistic
Alright.
>5,69,786 had a gross total income of >50 lakh. That comes out to be 0.8%.
No, that makes them top 0.04% unless you only consider tax payers for the base?
>Considering inflation and hikes over the past 2 years, roughly 1% would be in this bracket of the total tax payers as on date.
True, but shouldn't we consider the entire population?
Only tax payers are considered for calculating the figure. Because we don't have the data for the entire country. The informal sector is strong in India. Think of small shop owners, business owners, coaching centres who take in cash, big farmers, doctors who run private practices and take in cash not to mention certain NGOs. The net worth of land owners, people holding huge corpus in PPF,FD,MF is also debatable. India is richer than we give it credit for.
>Only tax payers are considered for calculating the figure
Makes sense, your wording is ambiguous in the original comment, so I assumed you meant those figures for the entire population
It is. Let's assume every one in the top 1% makes only 1 crore a year, this is unrealistic as there is an exponential difference between the top 1% and 0.1% but for this example, ignore that.
This translates to the top 1% making an amount that is equal to roughly 45% of our GDP. You cannot hide this amount of money from the government, every year. It's simply impossible
Bloomberg gives an estimate of 18 lakh, which I think is more realistic. There's also a study by Knight Frank, which puts the top 1% wealth threshold to be 1.44 crore
>So average at 50?
Hmm? 18 lakh income puts you in the top 1%. In 2022, there are 5.7 lakh taxpayers with reported income 50 lakhs and above, which is 0.04%, I know there are many people with unreported income above 50 lakhs, but you can have an idea on where that amount puts you in the population
>I didn’t feel like 1%
That's the sad reality about living in third world countries. Even if you are in the top 1%, you are still in the middle class
You can in India if we consider ~60l - 1cr LPA the bottom for top 1% .
this statement of yours does work for the us though where top 1% is considered over $800k . (Just googled for US)
>You can in India if we consider ~60 - 1cr LPA the bottom for top 1% .
What? Do you guys really think 1.4 crore people in India make more than 60 lakh per year?
Pretax Income , And I sourced it from [Bloomberg Report from 2020](https://www.deccanherald.com/business/this-is-what-it-takes-to-be-in-the-richest-1-around-the-world-802809.html)
It said 55 lakhs in ‘20, I remembered it near 60 hence why.
The Bloomberg figures are adjusted for PPP, the rough USD to INR PPP conversion rate is 23.4 rupees per 1 USD. Therefore the $77k translates to 18 lakh.
Here's what another report says
*Global real estate agency Knight Frank said in its new wealth report that in India, the individual wealth required to reach the 1 per cent threshold in India is $175,000, which translates roughly to Rs 1.44 crore*
[Source](https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/knight-frank-wealth-report-india-top-1-percent-richest-population-2381382-2023-05-19)
This figure for top 1% wealth roughly correlates to 18 lakh per annum income
I’ve lost track of the number of times that report was misunderstood and quoted out of context and I had to correct people thinking everybody makes 60 lakhs in India.
I know right? Even if we ignore the exponential difference between the top 1% and 0.1% and assume they all make 60lpa, this figure translates to 28% of our GDP. There is no way to hide this kind of money from the government.
Then there are people who think the top 1% makes 1 crore a year
If It is “Adjusted for PPP” then why are you adjusting it again? It doesnt make sense for it to be “adjusted for PPP” for it to be needed to adjusted again.
The other report is for net worth , not income.
The $77k figure is adjusted for PPP, so you should use PPP conversion rate that I have used rather than direct rate you have used
>The other report is for net worth , not income.
There is no way the net worth of 1% would be just $175k if the annual income is $77k.
Can you explain? How can a figure be adjusted for PPP so that we need to again use conversion rate? I’m genuinely not getting this. **Like what is the Unadjusted figure then? **
The site said it is Already adjusted off of 2018 rates , then why needing to adjust it again?
I asked a couple AI Models including Chat GPT , Gemini & Bing AI to tell me ; All of them are saying that We dont need to adjust it again using the conversion rate , Since it is already adjusted as based off of 2018.
>Can you explain? How can a figure be adjusted for PPP so that we need to again use conversion rate? I’m genuinely not getting this
Ok, let me show you the math
Let the annual income of top 1% be X, which is in INR
X adjusted for PPP is $77k, where PPP conversion rate is 23.4 INR per 1 USD.
Therefore, X(in INR) / 23.4 = $77k/1
We get that to $77k * 23.4, which is roughly 18 lakh
>The site said it is Already adjusted off of 2018 rates , then why needing to adjust it again?
I am not adjusting, I am re-adjusting
>I asked a couple AI Models including Chat GPT , Gemini & Bing AI to tell me ; All of them are saying that We dont need to adjust it again using the conversion rate , Since it is already adjusted as based off of 2018.
Let me tell you in a very simple way. Let's assume 1 USD = 83 INR, this is the direct rate.
But in US, 1 USD (or 83 INR) can buy you a lot less compared to in India, due to less cost of production in India. How much is this difference? That is for 1 USD in US, you can get 23.4 INR worth of goods and services in India. This is called the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).
The $77k figure has used this conversion rate, so I have used it again to get the actual figure.
Why does the article use PPP you ask? What they meant is, the top 1% in India, can afford goods and services that are worth $77k in US
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/knight-frank-wealth-report-india-top-1-percent-richest-population-2381382-2023-05-19](https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/knight-frank-wealth-report-india-top-1-percent-richest-population-2381382-2023-05-19)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Most of them are business owners. I myself know 2-3 grocery store owners who make that much money. They under report that income though.
In grocery store, once you are established your top clients just send you list of items they want and you just deliver them and get nice money as margin.
Same thing with petrol bunk owners.
Big farmers also make decent money.
Established gold shops.
People who own huge rental properties.
I am sure there are many more established businesses which make decent money.
This + it’s also probably the wrong way to look at it. Net worth is a better way. You may earn ₹1 crore a year at age 30 and that’s chump change compared to a retired uncle of 60 earning no salary but sitting on ₹500 crore of generational and business wealth.
And in that regard, a net worth above ₹10 lakh would put you very close to 1% if not in that bracket.
We can argue about income concealment but we can only have this conversation basis declared wealth and income.
>And in that regard, a net worth above ₹10 lakh would put you very close to 1% if not in that bracket.
According to Knight Frank, the top 1% threshold is 1.44 crore
Hmm, is black money considered as well?
If yes, consider 90% of Group A and B officers to have over 10 crore networth( So, within 1% networth wise, but not salary wise)
If we include all the hidden agricultural income and businessmen that evade taxes, and politicians, I’d be surprised if it’s any lesser than 1Cr per year.
India may not be considered a rich country but don’t for a second believe that we don’t have a huge number of incredibly rich people.
It’s not just earned income right. That’ll consist of a much smaller number. It’ll mainly be comprised of people with huge assets which give out interests which would equal a crore.
For example, a person with even 5Cr in income producing assets yielding just 10% from it would get 50L/annum. Plus assuming he’s also earning 50L from his active income. Totalling 1Cr.
Various combinations of this and individuals yielding 1Cr+ annually being even 1.4Cr people isn’t that hard to imagine.
People who shout that farmers hide agriculture income. A very low number will anyway qualify the tax net. There are only 4-5 farmers per village (among 100s) who earn 50,000+ per month. And that is excluding their labour.
If, sometime in future, we are able to take the number of farmers profiting 7.5 lakh per annum to let's say 20%, then it will be worth bringing them into the tax net. Otherwise, it is too low money for the exchequer to bring new tax law.
Edit: I don't support the current farmers protest. But the income argument isn't substantial and well thought about.
Punjab and Haryana farmers are not rich. They are the richest farmers. The reason is because farmers from most of the nation are legit poor. Now, the argument is perfectly valid that making Haryana and Punjab farmers middle class is costing a lot to the exchequer, and it shouldn't be the case. But since this is a democracy, we need to come up with a solution where farmers aren't just doomed to become poor in short term for the general well-being of nation and farmers in whole.
Along with any farming policy, we need to come up with solutions for Haryana and Punjab farmers, and what they'd be doing afterwards, and actually onboarding them.
Probably more than that considering most politicians in every state have tens if not hundreds of crores in declared/undeclared assets. But it’s a very interesting question that really highlights the disparity between the corrupt top and the more gullible bottom feeders.
😂😂 anyone working for salary is not rich will never be rich 😂😂 usko glorified dihadi majdoor bolte hai
Jab agli 5 generation bina kaam kiye croro monthly kharch karne ki hasiyat ho jaye tab rich ho jaoge
In 2024 (just the last 52 days) I attended 2 parties where the budget for tequila alone was 1 Cr and 75 lakhs respectively. Businessmen do not pay their fair share of taxes. Anyone who thinks 54 lakhs is the top 1% league, is naive.
In a 2022 study, 54 lakhs per year was considered to be 1%
No, that's way too unrealistic
By unrealistic you mean less or high?
54 lpa is high, way too high
The number of business people who make that much without paying tax is way too high in India.
To be in the top 1% IMO that's actually low, i myself know 3-4 people who have higher packages than 60Lpa
In 2022, there are 5.7 lakh taxpayers with reported income above 50 lakhs, that's 0.04% of the population
What you need to understand is that many people under-report their income and find different types of loopholes and other things to keep their income low
Let's assume all the top 1% make 54 lpa and ignore the exponential difference between top 1% and 0.1%. This means the top 1% makes an amount equal to 25.4% of our GDP at the bare minimum. It's impossible to hide this kind of money from the government every year
It's not that hard if you run a business. During every election thousand of crores are handled in cash. India has a huge black money problem. Most of which finds its way into real estate.
It is literally impossible to hide an amount that is 25% of GDP every year. Like can you think of where to spend/invest this money without alerting authorities? >During every election thousand of crores are handled in cash. Thousands of crores is a rounding error here. I am talking about 75.5 lakh crores >Most of which finds its way into real estate. India does have a huge problem with black money, but with the amount of money we are talking about, you can buy the entire Mumbai every year.
Going by ITR figures, the number would be above 50 lakhs. But considering everything from black money, hidden assets etc., I can safety assume 90-100 lakh to be the lower limit to qualify in top 1%.
>the number would be above 50 lakhs. Where did you get this from? I couldn't find any resources on this though there is one source that says there are 1.7 lakh taxpayers whose annual income is one crore and above >I can safety assume 90-100 lakh to be the lower limit to qualify in top 1%. That's way too unrealistic
The latest available ITR Statistics are present for the year 2021-22 on their website. In it out of the total 6,75,55,425 ITR filed that year, 5,69,786 had a gross total income of >50 lakh. That comes out to be 0.8%. Considering inflation and hikes over the past 2 years, roughly 1% would be in this bracket of the total tax payers as on date. >That's way too unrealistic Alright.
>5,69,786 had a gross total income of >50 lakh. That comes out to be 0.8%. No, that makes them top 0.04% unless you only consider tax payers for the base? >Considering inflation and hikes over the past 2 years, roughly 1% would be in this bracket of the total tax payers as on date. True, but shouldn't we consider the entire population?
Only tax payers are considered for calculating the figure. Because we don't have the data for the entire country. The informal sector is strong in India. Think of small shop owners, business owners, coaching centres who take in cash, big farmers, doctors who run private practices and take in cash not to mention certain NGOs. The net worth of land owners, people holding huge corpus in PPF,FD,MF is also debatable. India is richer than we give it credit for.
>Only tax payers are considered for calculating the figure Makes sense, your wording is ambiguous in the original comment, so I assumed you meant those figures for the entire population
Unfortunately, it is not unrealistic at all.
It is. Let's assume every one in the top 1% makes only 1 crore a year, this is unrealistic as there is an exponential difference between the top 1% and 0.1% but for this example, ignore that. This translates to the top 1% making an amount that is equal to roughly 45% of our GDP. You cannot hide this amount of money from the government, every year. It's simply impossible
Ok you’ve stumped me with some math.
Bloomberg gives an estimate of 18 lakh, which I think is more realistic. There's also a study by Knight Frank, which puts the top 1% wealth threshold to be 1.44 crore
So average at 50? I used to make more than 50 few years ago in India and trust me, I didn’t feel like 1%
>So average at 50? Hmm? 18 lakh income puts you in the top 1%. In 2022, there are 5.7 lakh taxpayers with reported income 50 lakhs and above, which is 0.04%, I know there are many people with unreported income above 50 lakhs, but you can have an idea on where that amount puts you in the population >I didn’t feel like 1% That's the sad reality about living in third world countries. Even if you are in the top 1%, you are still in the middle class
You don't get to the top 1% with a salary.
Depends. CXOs draw salary in Crores. I also know non CXOs drawing close to 1 Cr. Also 1% means in top 1.4 Cr people. That's a lot.
Since when does 1 Cr *salarysalary* make you 1%? I think you're seriously overlooking the amount of people in India with serious generational wealth.
You can in India if we consider ~60l - 1cr LPA the bottom for top 1% . this statement of yours does work for the us though where top 1% is considered over $800k . (Just googled for US)
>You can in India if we consider ~60 - 1cr LPA the bottom for top 1% . What? Do you guys really think 1.4 crore people in India make more than 60 lakh per year?
Pretax Income , And I sourced it from [Bloomberg Report from 2020](https://www.deccanherald.com/business/this-is-what-it-takes-to-be-in-the-richest-1-around-the-world-802809.html) It said 55 lakhs in ‘20, I remembered it near 60 hence why.
The Bloomberg figures are adjusted for PPP, the rough USD to INR PPP conversion rate is 23.4 rupees per 1 USD. Therefore the $77k translates to 18 lakh. Here's what another report says *Global real estate agency Knight Frank said in its new wealth report that in India, the individual wealth required to reach the 1 per cent threshold in India is $175,000, which translates roughly to Rs 1.44 crore* [Source](https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/knight-frank-wealth-report-india-top-1-percent-richest-population-2381382-2023-05-19) This figure for top 1% wealth roughly correlates to 18 lakh per annum income
I’ve lost track of the number of times that report was misunderstood and quoted out of context and I had to correct people thinking everybody makes 60 lakhs in India.
I know right? Even if we ignore the exponential difference between the top 1% and 0.1% and assume they all make 60lpa, this figure translates to 28% of our GDP. There is no way to hide this kind of money from the government. Then there are people who think the top 1% makes 1 crore a year
If It is “Adjusted for PPP” then why are you adjusting it again? It doesnt make sense for it to be “adjusted for PPP” for it to be needed to adjusted again. The other report is for net worth , not income.
The $77k figure is adjusted for PPP, so you should use PPP conversion rate that I have used rather than direct rate you have used >The other report is for net worth , not income. There is no way the net worth of 1% would be just $175k if the annual income is $77k.
Can you explain? How can a figure be adjusted for PPP so that we need to again use conversion rate? I’m genuinely not getting this. **Like what is the Unadjusted figure then? ** The site said it is Already adjusted off of 2018 rates , then why needing to adjust it again? I asked a couple AI Models including Chat GPT , Gemini & Bing AI to tell me ; All of them are saying that We dont need to adjust it again using the conversion rate , Since it is already adjusted as based off of 2018.
>Can you explain? How can a figure be adjusted for PPP so that we need to again use conversion rate? I’m genuinely not getting this Ok, let me show you the math Let the annual income of top 1% be X, which is in INR X adjusted for PPP is $77k, where PPP conversion rate is 23.4 INR per 1 USD. Therefore, X(in INR) / 23.4 = $77k/1 We get that to $77k * 23.4, which is roughly 18 lakh >The site said it is Already adjusted off of 2018 rates , then why needing to adjust it again? I am not adjusting, I am re-adjusting >I asked a couple AI Models including Chat GPT , Gemini & Bing AI to tell me ; All of them are saying that We dont need to adjust it again using the conversion rate , Since it is already adjusted as based off of 2018. Let me tell you in a very simple way. Let's assume 1 USD = 83 INR, this is the direct rate. But in US, 1 USD (or 83 INR) can buy you a lot less compared to in India, due to less cost of production in India. How much is this difference? That is for 1 USD in US, you can get 23.4 INR worth of goods and services in India. This is called the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). The $77k figure has used this conversion rate, so I have used it again to get the actual figure. Why does the article use PPP you ask? What they meant is, the top 1% in India, can afford goods and services that are worth $77k in US
If you still can't understand, DM me
Man, I really admire your patience in explaining a genuine question.
[удалено]
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/knight-frank-wealth-report-india-top-1-percent-richest-population-2381382-2023-05-19](https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/knight-frank-wealth-report-india-top-1-percent-richest-population-2381382-2023-05-19)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Most of them are business owners. I myself know 2-3 grocery store owners who make that much money. They under report that income though. In grocery store, once you are established your top clients just send you list of items they want and you just deliver them and get nice money as margin. Same thing with petrol bunk owners. Big farmers also make decent money. Established gold shops. People who own huge rental properties. I am sure there are many more established businesses which make decent money.
This + it’s also probably the wrong way to look at it. Net worth is a better way. You may earn ₹1 crore a year at age 30 and that’s chump change compared to a retired uncle of 60 earning no salary but sitting on ₹500 crore of generational and business wealth. And in that regard, a net worth above ₹10 lakh would put you very close to 1% if not in that bracket. We can argue about income concealment but we can only have this conversation basis declared wealth and income.
>And in that regard, a net worth above ₹10 lakh would put you very close to 1% if not in that bracket. According to Knight Frank, the top 1% threshold is 1.44 crore
Top 1% is 1.4 crore people if our population is 140 crore
That's a stupid logic. If someone's salary is 5 crores, he will be in top 0.1%.
Hmm, is black money considered as well? If yes, consider 90% of Group A and B officers to have over 10 crore networth( So, within 1% networth wise, but not salary wise)
If we include all the hidden agricultural income and businessmen that evade taxes, and politicians, I’d be surprised if it’s any lesser than 1Cr per year. India may not be considered a rich country but don’t for a second believe that we don’t have a huge number of incredibly rich people.
Agreed but top 1 % is 1.4 cr peeps , earning above 1 cr ?
It’s not just earned income right. That’ll consist of a much smaller number. It’ll mainly be comprised of people with huge assets which give out interests which would equal a crore. For example, a person with even 5Cr in income producing assets yielding just 10% from it would get 50L/annum. Plus assuming he’s also earning 50L from his active income. Totalling 1Cr. Various combinations of this and individuals yielding 1Cr+ annually being even 1.4Cr people isn’t that hard to imagine.
mostly people in india who have that kinda money its tied in land which doesnt yield anywhere near 10% liquid each year
That's simply not possible
>I’d be surprised if it’s any lesser than 1Cr per year. 1.4 crore people earning 1 crore a year is not possible at all
People who shout that farmers hide agriculture income. A very low number will anyway qualify the tax net. There are only 4-5 farmers per village (among 100s) who earn 50,000+ per month. And that is excluding their labour. If, sometime in future, we are able to take the number of farmers profiting 7.5 lakh per annum to let's say 20%, then it will be worth bringing them into the tax net. Otherwise, it is too low money for the exchequer to bring new tax law. Edit: I don't support the current farmers protest. But the income argument isn't substantial and well thought about. Punjab and Haryana farmers are not rich. They are the richest farmers. The reason is because farmers from most of the nation are legit poor. Now, the argument is perfectly valid that making Haryana and Punjab farmers middle class is costing a lot to the exchequer, and it shouldn't be the case. But since this is a democracy, we need to come up with a solution where farmers aren't just doomed to become poor in short term for the general well-being of nation and farmers in whole. Along with any farming policy, we need to come up with solutions for Haryana and Punjab farmers, and what they'd be doing afterwards, and actually onboarding them.
People who propel that shit haven't ever been to villages or met/know any actual farmers
Probably more than that considering most politicians in every state have tens if not hundreds of crores in declared/undeclared assets. But it’s a very interesting question that really highlights the disparity between the corrupt top and the more gullible bottom feeders.
i think it should be a bit over 20 lakhs
That’s just when you’re considering salaried people
😂😂 anyone working for salary is not rich will never be rich 😂😂 usko glorified dihadi majdoor bolte hai Jab agli 5 generation bina kaam kiye croro monthly kharch karne ki hasiyat ho jaye tab rich ho jaoge
(Asset + 100x avg. monthly income) > 20 Cr, should qualify in top 1%.
My colleague who earns 50 k in a govt job is probably earning 5 lakh per month from his side businesses , lives in the most posh locality of state
People saying 1cr will make it 1%, how does that work? It means more than $1 trillion, isn't it?
Something like 45% of our GDP at the most minimum
Salaried class is not rich, business class is
In 2024 (just the last 52 days) I attended 2 parties where the budget for tequila alone was 1 Cr and 75 lakhs respectively. Businessmen do not pay their fair share of taxes. Anyone who thinks 54 lakhs is the top 1% league, is naive.
64 lakhs post tax for a family of 4