MITT ROMNEY is not the first multi-millionaire to seek the presidency, nor the richest. Ross Perot, the record-holder, spent some of his billions earned from computer data on losing bids in 1992 and 1996. Since then men who owe their or their family’s fortunes to oil, sport, publishing, trial law, ketchup, beer and bestselling autobiographies have followed.
米特•罗姆尼不是第一个竞选总统的身家数百万的富豪，也不是其中最富裕的。纪录保持者是罗斯•比洛特，他靠电脑数据赚了几十亿美元，其中一些花在了1992年 和1996年两场失败的总统竞选上。自此之后竞选总统的富豪也不在少数，这些人的财富分别来自石油、运动、出版、法律等，还有靠卖番茄酱、啤酒、畅销自传 等赚钱的。
But Mr Romney, who earned his $200m or so as a private-equity executive buying and selling companies, is the first candidate from the world of high-octane finance. As such, he illustrates the changing complexion of America’s rich. The wealthiest 1% of Americans not only get more of the pie; they are increasingly creatures of finance.
The average household income of the 1% was $1.2m in 2008, according to federal tax data. The ultra-rich skew that average upwards: admission to the 1% began at $380,000 in 2008. The Congressional Budget Office puts the cut-off lower, at $347,000 in 2007, or $252,000 after subtracting federal taxes and adding back transfers. Measured by net worth, rather than income, the top 1% started at $6.9m in 2009, according to the Federal Reserve, down 23% from 2007.
根据联邦税务数据，1%这一群体在2008年的平均家庭年收入为120万美元；其中超富阶层的年收入悄然拔高了这个平均值：2008年1%的准入门槛为年收入38万美 元。国会预算办公室认为这个标准应该更低，在2007年其应为34万7千美元；按除去联邦税款、加上转移支付后计算，应为25万2千美元。根据美联储数据，若以 净值衡量而非以年收入衡量，2009年1%群体准入门槛为6,900,000美元，比2007年降低了23%。
The richest 1% earn roughly half their income from wages and salaries, a quarter from self-employment and business income, and the remainder from interest, dividends, capital gains and rent. According to an analysis of tax returns by Jon Bakija of Williams College and two others, 16% of the top 1% were in medical professions and 8% were lawyers: shares that have changed little between 1979 and 2005, the latest year the authors examined (see chart). The most striking shift has been the growth of financial occupations, from just under 8% of the wealthy in 1979 to 13.9% in 2005. Their representation within the top 0.1% is even more pronounced: 18%, up from 11% in 1979.
最富1%们收入中约一半来自工资和薪水，四分之一来自自营业务和生意收入，剩下来自于利息、分红、资本利得和租金。根据乔恩和另两位学者对纳税申报单的 分析研究，1%们中有16%来自于医药业，8%是律师，这两个比例在1979年-2005年间变化不大，作者的研究数据最晚来自2005年。最惊人的变化是金融业从业者 所占比例，从1979年的不到8%增长到了2005年的13.9%； 其在前0.1%中的比例变化更显著，从1979年的11%增长到了18%。
Steve Kaplan of the University of Chicago thinks finance explains much of the rise in inequality. Updating a series developed by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, Mr Kaplan notes that the share of income going to the 1% reached an 80-year high of 23.5% in 2007, only to sink to 17.6% in 2009 as the financial markets deflated (see chart). The trend is even more pronounced for the top 0.1%, whose share of total income rose to 12.3% in 2007 but sank to a still disproportionate 8.1% in 2009.
Mr Kaplan and Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University note that investment bankers, corporate lawyers, hedge-fund and private-equity managers have displaced corporate executives at the top of the income ladder. In 2009 the richest 25 hedge-fund investors earned more than $25 billion, roughly six times as much as all the chief executives of companies in the S&P 500 stock index combined.
Although the 1% have been gaining share in most countries, a recent OECD report shows that the trend began sooner, and has gone further, in America. Some scholars, noting that inequality has risen more in English-speaking countries, think social and political values may play a role: in mainland Europe and Japan, corporate governance, tax laws and unionisation have tended to lessen income disparities. But the relatively large role of the financial sector in English-speaking countries could also be a factor: even more of the top 1% work in finance in Britain than in America.
尽管在大多数国家前1%一直在增加其所占有社会财富的比例，最近一份OECD报告显示这个趋势在美国开始更早、进展更深入。一些学者认为此不公现象在英语 国家更严重，社会和政治价值观或许与此有关：在欧洲大陆和日本，其公司治理模式、税法和工会组织有助于减弱收入差距。但在英语国家中金融业扮演着相对 更重要的角色，可能这也是造成现状的一个原因：英国的最富1%们中在金融业工作的比例比美国的更大。
Membership in America’s 1% is relatively stable; three-quarters of the households in the percentile one year will still be there the next. Although the proportion shrinks over time, one study found that the vast majority of the top 1% were still in the richest 10% a decade later. Kinship plays a big part: rich parents tend to produce rich kids. High levels of educational attainment and stable families help in this. According to Gallup, 72% of the 1% have a college degree, and half have a postgraduate degree; those are two to three times the proportion of the other 99%. The 1% are more likely to be married and to have children.
美国最富1%的身份变化不大；每年有四分之三的家庭在下一年继续属于这个阶层。尽管随着时间的推移，能够一直留在前1%的家庭比例在不断下降，但一项研究 发现绝大多数进入前1%的家庭在10年后依然能跻身前10%。亲属关系至关重要：富裕的父母更有可能养育出富裕后代。高水平的教育和稳定的家庭对此有帮助。 根据盖洛普公司调查结果，1%们中有72%有大学学位，有一半获得研究生学位，比例是其他99%们的两到三倍。1%们结婚和养育下一代的比例更大。
The rich also increasingly marry people like themselves. Mr Bakija and his co-authors found that between 1979 and 2005, the share of spouses of the 1% who had blue-collar or “miscellaneous” service-sector backgrounds declined slightly, from 7.9% to 6.4%. The share of spouses who worked in finance, property and law rose from 3.5% to 8.8%.
富人们越来越多地在本阶层内部通婚。巴甲先生及其同著作者们发现，1979到2005年间，1%夫妇其中一人来自蓝领阶层或杂七杂八的非专业服务业背景的比例稍 稍降低，从7.9%降低到了6.4%。 工作于金融、不动产、法律行业的从3.5%增长到了8.8%。
Politically, Gallup polls find that the 1% are more likely than the 99% to identify themselves as Republicans (33% to 28%) and less likely to be Democrats (26% to 33%). A survey of 104 wealthy families in the Chicago area, led by Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, found the budget deficit was their leading worry, followed by unemployment; for the broader population, the reverse is true. Still the rich, like most voters, have eclectic views, often supporting liberal and conservative positions simultaneously. For example, Keith Whitaker, who advises wealthy families on behalf of Wells Fargo, says many of them sympathise with the Occupy Wall Street movement. A lot of them became rich by building businesses and consider Wall Street “the place where businesses are taken apart and run by someone else”.
从政治角度看，盖洛普调查发现最富的1%中将自己归为共和党的比例比其余99%多（分别占比为33%和28%）而归为民主党的少（ 分别占比为26% 和33%）。西 北大学本杰明•裴吉在芝加哥地区进行的对104个富裕家庭进行的调查发现，预算赤字是他们最大的政治担忧，其次是失业；而对于更广阔的群体来说，这个重要性 排序恰好相反。然而1%们的思维正如大多数选民一样并不开放灵活，常常同时支持自由主义和保守主义的观点。比如代表富国银行为富裕家庭提供建议的基思•惠 特克说， 他们中的很多人同情占领华尔街运动；他们很多人通过商业经营致富，认同“认为华尔街是一个“把（别人的）企业拿来解体，交由他人管理的地方。”” 。
Bob Perkowitz embodies these contradictions. A rich entrepreneur, he now devotes much of his time to a non-profit environmental outfit. He is a lifelong Republican who objects to George Bush junior’s tax cuts for the wealthy, and backed Barack Obama in 2008. Having restructured companies himself, he has no trouble with Mr Romney’s private-equity work but agrees with Occupy Wall Street that corporations have too much power.
Until recently he split his time between conservative Charlotte, North Carolina, and liberal Washington, DC. His wife, Lisa Renstrom, used to manage hotels inherited from her father, a prosperous Republican businessman. Now she campaigns on climate change and backs Wealth for the Common Good, a group of rich people who back Occupy Wall Street. Her father used to give his occupation as “capitalist”. “I grew up believing that [capitalists] were making the world a better place,” she says. “The capitalism we have has left us with degraded infrastructure, threats to our health, and global warming.”
直到最近他一直都在两个地方生活：保守的北卡罗来纳州夏洛特市和开放的华盛顿特区。他的妻子丽莎•恩斯曾经管理过继承自其父亲（也是一位成功的共和党商 人）的一家旅馆，现在她正为气候变化奔走呼号，参加一个名为“财富为大家”的支持华尔街运动的富人团体。她的父亲曾称自己为一名“资本家”。“在我的成长历 程中，我一直相信资本家使这个世界更美好，”她说。“我们的资本主义留给我们的是破败的基础设施、对我们健康的威胁和全球变暖。”
Most of the 1% prefer not to talk about their good fortune. As the New York Times recently observed in an article on the 1%, “Some envisioned waking up to protesters on the lawn; others feared audits by the IRS or other punitive government action.”But Mr Perkowitz and Ms Renstrom are utterly typical of the 1% in that they are far more politically engaged than the average 99-percenters. Nearly all the rich people surveyed by Northwestern vote, 68% make campaign contributions, nearly half had contacted a member of Congress and a fifth had solicited contributions on behalf of a candidate. A good chunk of those calls were meant to help their businesses. But many were motivated by the common good, defined in as many different ways as the sources of their wealth.
大多数的1%们不想讨论他们的财富。纽约时报上最近的一篇文章称，“一些人想象着早上醒来发现草坪上的示威者的场景；另外一些人害怕IRS的审计或其他惩罚 性的政府措施。”但1%们的政治参与度比其余99%更高，派克威先生和恩斯女士是其中的典型。几乎所有参与西北大学调查的人都投票，68%的人曾为政治活动捐 款，近一半的人与一位国会议员联络过，有五分之一的人曾代表某候选人募集过竞选资金。以上行为中，相当一部分是为了照顾好他们自己的生意；但很多人也 是出于谋求公众利益，从很多角度讲那都是他们财富的源泉。