Concerning Mr. Stamell’s Aug. 29 guest column (Scrabble and the privilege of wealth), he writes, “At the end of 2016, an annual household income of a little over $12 million qualified for membership in the top 1% of earners in America.” While it is true that an income this large would put the household in the top 1%, it suggests that a lower income would not be in the top 1%. In fact, the breakpoint to be in the top 1% in 2016 required a household income of about $400,000 — significantly less than $12 million. It would be better if he started with numbers closer to the facts. And it would help if he did a better job explaining why his Scrabble analogy should apply to financial assets or household income. He writes “But here’s the big difference: unlike the ease of spending money in real life, using uncommon letters on a Scrabble board is often difficult …” Wouldn’t it make more sense to consider “earning money” rather than “spending money?”
Daniel Lyons
Florence