What annual income puts you among "The Rich"?

[kallend 2,150]

Well?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

It used to be $100k ... but now I'd say it's higher. So I voted $250k. Then again it is not necessarily what you make, but what you spend versus what you make. You could make over 1 million a year, but if you spend 1+ million you are hardly going to be rich at the end of the year.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

It used to be $100k ... but now I'd say it's higher. So I voted $250k. Then again it is not necessarily what you make, but what you spend versus what you make. You could make over 1 million a year, but if you spend 1+ million you are hardly going to be rich at the end of the year.

If you spend $1M/year do you have a "rich" lifestyle?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

I'd say half a mil. $100k is comfortable and $250k is pretty well-off, but not "rich".

Wait...are we talking individual income or household income?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[AWL71 0]

Depends on where you are at. $250K is rich for the Southeast IMO but you would need double that to be rich in CA.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Steel 0]

Anybody who thinks 100K/yearly is rich, is probably a looser with low asperations. I am sure there are plenty of them to go around or there wouldn't be Democrat party.

250K is the level which my experience has shown that most intelligent hard workers are typically reaching these days. Doctors, lawyers, vp's of small to moderate size companies.

500K I see at the similar to the 250 crowd except the ones making 500K have a little better luck helping them along.

1 million. I think people in this level usually grew up with a little bit of a head start. But I don't see anything wrong with that. I think its morally wrong to try to create a Socialist system in which people are not able to provide a head start for their children.
I did not grow up in this crowd, but it disgusts me when I hear Democrats try to demonize these people and use class-eny to try to push the Socialist agenda foward.

The funny thing is that regardless of whom they claim is "rich" and deserves to be taxed at a higher rate, in the end when the Democrats are in power, they raise taxes on everybody who is not dirt poor. If Obama was to win the presidency and have a Democrat congress to work with, I would have no doubt that everybody making over 30K/yearly would have their taxes increased.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

If you spend $1M/year do you have a "rich" lifestyle?

Yes I would say your lifestyle is "rich". But that doesn't give you much for those possible rainy days at the end of the year.

Not as many people wouldn't be losing their homes if they lived within their means and saved more than they do. In two weeks I will be coming off of a five month unemployed streak and I would have been screwed if it wasn't for my "rainy day" savings. Of course now I must start rebuilding this rainy day fund since it has been depleated from where it was six month ago.

BTW I am not sure where you are going with this. Rich is nothing more than a preception. Money allows people more freedom to do things, but money alone does not bring happiness. Then again, no money often (not always) brings dispair.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I'd say half a mil. $100k is comfortable and $250k is pretty well-off, but not "rich".

Wait...are we talking individual income or household income?

Blues,
Dave

Good question.

REV. WARREN: Okay. Taxes -- this is a real simple question. Define "rich." (Laughter.) I mean, give me a number. Is it 50,000 (dollars)? One hundred thousand (dollars)? Two hundred thousand (dollars)? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How do you define that?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>If Obama was to win the presidency and have a Democrat congress to
>work with, I would have no doubt that everybody making over 30K/yearly
>would have their taxes increased.

And if a republican is elected, your kids will see their taxes raised far more than that. Money is not free; it's a fact of life that you have to pay back what you borrow.

[Amazon 7]

What I consider to be rich and others ideas might be somewhat divergent.

I have worked for Boeing and Microsoft and other fortune 500 companies and have seen what RICH and still working is.

When someone is making $10 million a year.. I think they can finally be considered....RICH.

[billvon 3,120]

I'd say it's annual income on top of net worth. Someone who has ten million in the market/real estate/investments is rich even if he works at a drop zone.

[AggieDave 6]

In our modern economy I believe that 100k household income is being able to live OK without kids. Being able to save and buy the things you want, with in reason, owning a modest home and not having to worry too terribly much.

250k is the same level with 2-3 kids.

500k is very comfortable with 2-3 kids.

1M is being able to have all of the above with a larger house and nicer cars.

It doesn't matter if you make 10M a year if you're not good with your money. I'm not even talking about investing, I'm just talking about living with in your means and being responsible.

There are people out there that think making $30k a year is rich. Then again a large number of those persons that I have met living in government housing and collect a monthly government check because they CHOOSE to do so. They do not go back and get a GED, they do not do anything to better their situation. No desire to when they can get drunk/high every day and get "free" money.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[JohnRich 4]

Two-thirds of the poll respondents think that $250k is "rich".

Yet Obama wants to give people who make up to that amount tax cuts. I guess he figures it's tough to make a living these days on a lousy quarter-million dollars per year. Heck, yachts and Ferrari's are darned expensive, you know! And Obama is all about looking out for the poor little guys, who only make a quarter million.

"Obama shifts the tax burden onto the very wealthy by giving tax cuts mostly to those who are moderately wealthy ($100-250k)"

Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23287.html

But once you go over a quarter-mil, look out, because then Obama wants 60% of your income! He'll take your money to subsidize those poor folks who struggle to get by, living paycheck to paycheck, on just $250k. He's such a hero to the common man!

[billvon 3,120]

>Yet Obama wants to give people who make up to that amount tax cuts.
>I guess he figures it's tough to make a living these days on a lousy
>quarter-million dollars per year. Heck, yachts and Ferrari's are darned
>expensive, you know!

So you would be against tax cuts for people making up to 250K a year?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

So you would be against tax cuts for people making up to 250K a year?

I think every single US citizen is all about taxing the hell out of everyone BUT themselves. That way we get to keep all the stuff that people want the government to do, but you personally get to keep all your money.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Well?

I said a Mil. But again you can be rich w/o money. He's an interesting little read. >http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[billvon 3,120]

>I think every single US citizen is all about taxing the hell out of everyone
>BUT themselves.

Just about, yeah. And every government program can be cut, except for their favorite program/fund/war/effort.

[quade 4]

Quote

Well?

The top quintile.

Just guessing, but I'm thinking that the lower end of that is a lot LOWER than most people think.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Just about, yeah. And every government program can be cut, except for their favorite program/fund/war/effort.

So that leaves us back to the beginning. The problem isn't the taxes leved on different social economic groups, but the expectation of the people for the government to provide for everything.

Too lazy to work? No problem, pop out some kids, live in government housing, get free money and free food each and every month. Take that government check and get a 50" TV from Rentacenter and live large with no furniture in your house.

Too lazy to work and get medical insurance? No problem. Call 911 and get a free ride to the ER for your stomach ache or sprained ankle. You'll be billed, but that bill will be written off by the government for the hospital and all the first responders that had to put up with you.

Too lazy to contribute to society? Don't worry about it, we have government programs to make you feel better about yourself while you light up that crack rock.

You are physically disabled? Well, lets help you out with the expectation that you will contribute to society as much as you can without discriminating against you.

A natural disaster happens in an area prone for that natural disaster and you didn't have insurance? Don't worry, the government will bail you out and put you up in nice hotels/apartments for two years while you collect free money and do nothing.

Buy a house well beyond your means? Don't worry, the government will bail you out! Go ahead and write off all your credit card debt too!

This could go on for a long long time. Those examples listed are from what I have personally seen our government do!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[nerdgirl 0]

My first questions were "what is the distribution on annual income across the US"? And how does that correlate to purchasing power? E.g., $100k/y in northern Michigan would likely be "rich"; in northern California (SF Bay area) that would correlate to a substantially lower purchasing power (unless one owned a home before Proposition 13 went into law.)

Second question: what are the metrics to determine "rich"?

As a grad student, the financial ability to buy real Gore-Tex(R) rather than homemade, improvised, DIY versions for backpacking and hiking seemed like a pretty good ROM metric. (Neither Amundsen nor Hillary had Gore-Tex(R).) That's not a standard metric, afaik, however.

Being cognizant of what I suspect is the origin of the question, it's interesting to observe the poll responses and read the comments. Neat question!

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,120]

>The top quintile.

In that case, anything over $88,000 or so would be "rich." Indeed, you're not even at $250,000 until you are in the top two percent; 5% of all american households make over $150,000 a year.

From their answers to the question "where's the dividing line between middle class and rich":

McCain: $5 million a year. Got to be less than .1%; can't find any stats on that.
Obama: $250K, or top 1.5%

Edited to add - $5 million is indeed around .1% of US incomes.

[joedirt 0]

Quote

I'd say it's annual income on top of net worth

That's a better definition. Someone who brings in a 100,000 dollar yearly income from assets he owns is in a much different position than someone who makes a 100 grand yearly salary from a 40 hour a week job.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Just about, yeah. And every government program can be cut, except for their favorite program/fund/war/effort.

So that leaves us back to the beginning. The problem isn't the taxes leved on different social economic groups, but the expectation of the people for the government to provide for everything.

Too lazy to work? No problem, pop out some kids, live in government housing, get free money and free food each and every month. Take that government check and get a 50" TV from Rentacenter and live large with no furniture in your house.

Too lazy to work and get medical insurance? No problem. Call 911 and get a free ride to the ER for your stomach ache or sprained ankle. You'll be billed, but that bill will be written off by the government for the hospital and all the first responders that had to put up with you.

Too lazy to contribute to society? Don't worry about it, we have government programs to make you feel better about yourself while you light up that crack rock.

You are physically disabled? Well, lets help you out with the expectation that you will contribute to society as much as you can without discriminating against you.

A natural disaster happens in an area prone for that natural disaster and you didn't have insurance? Don't worry, the government will bail you out and put you up in nice hotels/apartments for two years while you collect free money and do nothing.

Buy a house well beyond your means? Don't worry, the government will bail you out! Go ahead and write off all your credit card debt too!

This could go on for a long long time. Those examples listed are from what I have personally seen our government do!

Don't forget bailing out banks and corps.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Second question: what are the metrics to determine "rich"?

Not how much you make, but where your income comes from. I say you are rich when you get a majority of your income from your assets and then after that, depending where you live, top 20% of income of the community. $250,000.00 a year job? if it's reported on a W-2 and you live paycheck to paycheck, you aren't rich, you just have a lot of money. You lose your job? you don't have that money. You invest well with that money and get a majority return? You're rich.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Steel 0]

Quote

>If Obama was to win the presidency and have a Democrat congress to
>work with, I would have no doubt that everybody making over 30K/yearly
>would have their taxes increased.

And if a republican is elected, your kids will see their taxes raised far more than that. Money is not free; it's a fact of life that you have to pay back what you borrow.

Something needs to be done about the national defecit but I think the first thing that needs to be done is to be honest about it. See the graph attached but look closely at it before jumping to conclusions.

Clinton took office just over 4 trillion and left office just under 6 trillion. This was at a time when the .com bubble was going on. You will also notice that by far the highest tax increase was in his first 2 years while he had a Democrat congress to work with. During the next 6 years, less deficit was being added. Still on a total you could estimate that it was 1.5 times higher when he left than when he came in. If you listen to a Democrat with fuzzy math they will claim that because of inflation or baseline spending that somehow Clinton lowered the deficit. What a joke that is!

Next lets look at Bush's record. In where Clinton left off and leaving at about 9.5 Trillion. His record leaving the deficit at about 1.7-1.8 is pretty damn close to what Clinton had. However, he had the 9/11 attack to deal with. The one that would not have happened, had Clinton sent those Cruise missles without alerting Pakistan. Bush addressed the escalating situation of Iraq. The one that Clinton started to address in 1998 but didn't finish. Never the less considering how expensive these inavoidable conflicts with the Middle East have been, even after lowering taxes, Bush has done a far better job dealing with the deficit.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.