At what income level do you consider someone is rich?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Pick the number that gives you raging case of the class envy greens and there you have it.

Now, write your congressman and demand the government punish those people for their productivity and success!
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Pick the number that gives you raging case of the class envy greens and there you have it.

Now, write your congressman and demand the government punish those people for their productivity and success!

yeah! Get them! Get those rich bastards scrapping by trying to provide for their family.
 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,572
5
81
I don't consider people rich based on their income, for the simple reason that someone who makes 50k a year after taxes and someone who makes 250k a year after taxes but who blows the money on cars, declining stocks, etc except for 50k a year is roughly equal.

A person's net worth + their income / income potential is a better indicator of whether a person is rich or not, although it also brings up the question of how to define "wealth".
 

JackBurton

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
15,993
14
81
When you've got a $15 million dollar house and the taxes are $30K per year alone, you're one rich motherfvcker in my book.
 

TridenT

Lifer
Sep 4, 2006
16,800
45
91
I consider someone rich if they make over $200,000 alone. $250,000 a year combined is not rich to me. Also need to have worth of over $500,000 USD.

Bottom line: Any child who has parents who buy them a car for them that is quite nice and also gets spoiled with the Diesel jeans, is a total spoiled brat bitch. I find it completely unfair that wealth gets you knowledge as well; higher education.
 
D

Deleted member 4644

When you don't have to worry about how you will pay for your next car, or your kids education or your home, you are rich.

Otherwise, you are merely well off.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
This is difficult since there are nine commonly used levels. lower/middle/upper with each partitioned into lower/middle/upper. Assuming a move from upper-middle to lower-upper, about 1M in assets.

I also add a super-rich level to the nine - ~1B in assets.
 

Casawi

Platinum Member
Oct 31, 2004
2,366
1
0
Rich people don't need income. They are just rich, they have the money to live well since day 1.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,476
3,976
126
Originally posted by: JD50
I'm confused. You keep saying being upper class is not about money (which I agree with) yet you keep going back to the magical $100k line in the sand.... Being solidly middle class ($100k combined household income) does not even come close to having power of having access to those with power, especially considering that most couples making that much money will probably have 2 to 3 kids. If you really do believe this, you are living in a fantasy land, with absolutely no idea how much it costs to raise a family.

I don't mean that as an insult to you btw.

Edit - Out of curiosity, how many kids do you have?
I gave very specific examples of how $100k gives you access to power if you choose. If you choose to have 3 kids instead of accessing that power, that is fine. That was your choice.

I have no kids. I would like 3 kids, but that doesn't look like it'll ever happen. I currently am well under the $100k salary mark but I alone make more than the national median household income. When I get married next summer, we'll be above $100k household income (my fiancee makes a little less than I do). We will have our house paid for completely by saving our own earned money well before the age of 35. We will have at least $5k/month extra to blow on whatever we want (we will invest most of it). We will become millionaires by the age of 40.

I certainly will feel rich. If having all that excess money each month and all that money in the bank makes me insane for feeling rich, then I am insane.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I consider rich when you have enough assets to live comfortably the rest of your life. At this moment in my life a net worth north of 5 million puts you into the rich category. Not insane rich but comfortable rich. Insane rich starts at 20 million +.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: dullard
$100,000.

That $100k level puts you at over double the median household income, it puts you in the upper tier of income earners, and it means you can easilly afford to get into the places where decisions are made. For example, you can afford to pal around at the country club with your local politicians. Heck, if you save up a bit, you can easilly afford a $10k plate at a dinner with the president or a ~$100k personal visit one-on-one with him. At under a $100k salary, you just can't swing those very easilly. Sure, it is possible, but it just isn't realistic to think someone at say $50k/year can afford a $100k meeting.

Sure, it is location dependent ($100k in hollywood is different from $100k in rural plains states). But, still, $100k is where the power doors can swing open if you choose to open them.

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. I was making $50k as a cop after about 3 years, my wife was making roughly the same. We had a household income of right at $100k, and you're going to tell me that we are rich? Insane.

So now according to you, cops, teachers, etc... are now considered rich and part of the upper class? Ridiculous.

There is a disconnect within our govt and society on rich vs poor. One of them is looking at a median household income and proclaiming people are rich if they double it. My wife and I after everything was deducted had a taxable income of ~65K last year. That puts us into the top 20% of income earners in the state of MN.

We live in a 1900 sq foot home with two cars both 5+ years old. The house is nice but not upper class which is what the govt considers us.

IMO the problem occurs when they lump people receiving govt benefits or not having taxable income into the mix. It drags the numbers down a bunch. I have heard if you exclude these people the actual median income in this country is closer to 72K\year for working households. People who are not collecting some kind of govt benefit or living off untaxable income.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: dullard
$100,000.

That $100k level puts you at over double the median household income, it puts you in the upper tier of income earners, and it means you can easilly afford to get into the places where decisions are made. For example, you can afford to pal around at the country club with your local politicians. Heck, if you save up a bit, you can easilly afford a $10k plate at a dinner with the president or a ~$100k personal visit one-on-one with him. At under a $100k salary, you just can't swing those very easilly. Sure, it is possible, but it just isn't realistic to think someone at say $50k/year can afford a $100k meeting.

Sure, it is location dependent ($100k in hollywood is different from $100k in rural plains states). But, still, $100k is where the power doors can swing open if you choose to open them.

Hahahaha, $100K lets you pal around with politicians? Time to add you to my list of idiots.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Amused
Pick the number that gives you raging case of the class envy greens and there you have it.

Now, write your congressman and demand the government punish those people for their productivity and success!

yeah! Get them! Get those rich bastards scrapping by trying to provide for their family.

Down with the $100K family! Burn them at the stake!
 
Nov 7, 2000
16,403
3
81
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Amused
Pick the number that gives you raging case of the class envy greens and there you have it.

Now, write your congressman and demand the government punish those people for their productivity and success!

yeah! Get them! Get those rich bastards scrapping by trying to provide for their family.

Down with the $100K family! Burn them at the stake!
time to change the definition of classes to be percentage based.
0-10% poor, 10-30% low class, 30-70 middle class, 70-90 upper class, 90-100 elite.
or, if it will make people feel better 0-1% & immigrants = poor, 1-99 middle class, 99-100 upper class. there, now everyone is the same!
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: JD50
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. I was making $50k as a cop after about 3 years, my wife was making roughly the same. We had a household income of right at $100k, and you're going to tell me that we are rich? Insane.

So now according to you, cops, teachers, etc... are now considered rich and part of the upper class? Ridiculous.
If combined you made more than $100k, then your household made more than 85% of all households in one of the richest countries on Earth. You made more than 99% of housholds on Earth and possibly more than 99.5% of them. With that in mind, how can you NOT call that in the upper regions?

The fact is, at $50k a pop, you each made more than the entire household combined for most families in the US. Teachers and cops like to complain that they have a low income. It just isn't true.

:thumbsup: for rational posts.

:confused:

Are you agreeing with him that a teacher and a cop are not part of the middle class?

For pointing out that MOST people in the US don't make 50k a year, and that's still many times what MOST people make in the rest of the world. If you're not living like a king at 100k a year then you're either in the most expensive area of the free world, or you have an IQ of 5.