how much income/networth does P&N require to classfiy someone as rich?

[bignateyk]

I'd say anyone with over $1M in annual income and/or over $10M in net worth.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

Depends too greatly on where you live. 100K in Manhattan is a wage slave while 100K in the Mississippi delta is a very rich person...

 

[Exterous]

Rich is defined by what you have/keep, not what you make. Or as the old adage goes - "you are not rich until your money works for you, not the other way around." If you are still a slave to a paycheck you are just that. Financial freedom has always been the basis of being categorized as rich.

:thumbsup: I think Net Worth would be a better definition of rich buts its harder to nail down and its easier to discuss income so most people focus on that. Geographical area can also have a very high impact on the definition. I also think that the achievement of Financial freedom does not equate to being rich (in the economic terms) as there are people who live on very very small budgets in order to retire early and remain on those small budgets (Often called 'Extreme Early Retirement). They achieved financial freedom but few would consider them financially rich.

Perhaps a more apt description would be those who have achieved financial freedom while maintaining the ability to live an above average lifestyle in their geographical area?

 

[boomerang]

I dont think of rich in terms of income but in terms of wealth. Somebody making 250K a year has a high income. But if they spend it foolishly they can still be middle class or even poor. Rich to me is somebody with enough wealth they dont need to work another day in their life.

Does that include retired people?

 

[Anarchist420]

i consider the richest people the ones who get money through a purely voluntary transaction, consume less than they produce (including whether they make people miserable, how helpful they are, and how cheerful or none angry they are), if they democratically run firms (corporations like intel are not what i consider the natural elite because of all the waste on management as the most efficient firms are small businesses, run from the owners' garage, and where there is no central office manager), and if they pay it forward.

that said, i will never be rich by my definition and only like 10% or the u.s. pop can be... you are either born wealthy or not born wealthy.

Rich is defined by what you have/keep, not what you make. Or as the old adage goes - "you are not rich until your money works for you, not the other way around." If you are still a slave to a paycheck you are just that. Financial freedom has always been the basis of being categorized as rich.

+1. I think of an agreeable person with a super high IQ as wealthy more than i think of being a Conservative Wall Street or Central Bankster and the vast majority of CEOs as being wealthy... sadly, i am more like a Conservative wall street bankster.

 

[shadow9d9]

The liberal definition of rich is anyone who makes more than themself. Most normal people see someone as rich when they can comfortably live off of their investments without having to hold a regular job.

Similar to how you think that someone is "liberal" simply because they have a different opinion than you.

 

[shadow9d9]

2 million net worth per person is what I would consider very wealthy/borderline rich.

 

[BoberFett]

This. Wealth is not measured by income.

Democrats that want to tax "the wealthy" don't understand that. Taxes are a function of income, not wealth. The left in this country are so stupid sometimes it's painful to watch.

 

[classy]

All I know is that I'm worthless and lots of folk here hate me.

I don't think you are worthless.................but I am struggling to think of something you are more valuable than..................

 

[spidey07]

Democrats that want to tax "the wealthy" don't understand that. Taxes are a function of income, not wealth. The left in this country are so stupid sometimes it's painful to watch.

Not so fast. They absolutely want to tax wealth and proven by their fervor over excessive death penalty taxes.

As said one is generally not rich or wealthy until you reach a point you no longer have to get paid. Your money is the one paying you via gains alone and net wealth continues to accelerate even after withdrawls.

At 5 million and a conservative 7% returns you're looking at 350k a year in gains. That is "starting" to be rich but not quite there. You're not going to be living a lavish lifestyle on 350k a year.

I'd go more towards liquid net worth of 10 million to be rich.

 

[WackyDan]

I believe upper bound household annual income to be considered upper middle class in the USA is around $160-170K.

Got this tidbit from Wikipedia (sources are cited in article):

Sociologists Dennis Gilbert, Willam Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate the upper middle class to constitute roughly 15% of the population. Using the 15% figure one may conclude that the American upper middle class consists, strictly in an income sense, of professionals with personal incomes in excess of $62,500, who commonly reside in households with six figure incomes.

It would appear an annual household income of $167K is in the top 5% of household incomes as well. From a purely percentage-based standpoint, that would seem "rich," but I'm not sure that really resonates as "rich" to others given that's still nothing monetarily compared to what some individuals and families bring in annually.

Also, a big part of this is location and cost of living at that location, which sometimes is offset by a difference in pay as well (but not always). For example, my profession pays roughly the same regardless of my location. If I were still living where I was in Indiana, my income would appear and "feel" larger than it does in Colorado due to a lower cost of living.

That said, income can reach a point where cost of living almost makes no difference. If I had to give a set value to classify someone as "rich," I would say about $250K annually for an individually or about $400-500K annually for a household.

I make $151k a year... and I'm not rich. I'm not hurting either. That $151k could be gone tomorrow with the next layoff, etc... So we can't use salary to define wealth. Even if I were to make that amount for the next twenty years, I still wouldn't be rich... and I live in a modest home ($142k) in an area with a fairly decent low cost of living. If I make that much for the next twenty years, I may have an ok retirement, but that is pretty much it.

 

[brandonb]

1) At my first job, one of the owners of the company was rich. But he lived like a poor person. He worse beat up jackets that were 10 years old. Holes in his jeans. He looked like a hobo. I remember him wanting to go buy a caddy for his 70th birthday. He said he went into the car lot, the salesman looked at him and blew him off thinking he was a waste of time. He was going to buy the car with cash, not credit, and they didn't give him the time of day. He came back and told the story about how he was offended that they blew him off and he was ready to drop $60k on the spot.

So he went to the Lincoln dealer and bought one of those instead.

He gave me work at this job when I was new with no experience working on critical components of the system because he wanted to give me a shot when nobody else would. I even went to him when I seen a hole in his logic and he was beaming with this huge grin on his face when I caught it and brought it up to him. When everybody else would have been intimidated by him from his title and would have just went forward with his plan as is.

He was rich, but didn't flaunt it in any sort of way, and lived his life as a poor/middle class person and as a peer to everybody else. I wouldn't consider him rich at all, and was a great guy. Even after he retired he'd bring in ham and potato hot dish for the office every 3-6 months. He even ate like he was poor.

2) I've seen others who take their money, buy a 500k+ house, a boat, and act very judgmental about everybody around them like they are idiots or "monkeys." They probably had less money than the first guy, but act like they are special. I'd consider them rich. You know the spoiled brat, self absorbed, working off the backs of others types.

To me, rich is about personality, not money in the bank.

But to answer the question. A house valued at $500k+ (when the other average person may have a 150k house)...

 

[DrPizza]

I believe upper bound household annual income to be considered upper middle class in the USA is around $160-170K.

I see "middle class" as a working class. That's why I said "rich" are people who do *not* have to work. Professionals, while wealthy, are working. Hence, I place them in middle class - upper middle class.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Democrats that want to tax "the wealthy" don't understand that. Taxes are a function of income, not wealth. The left in this country are so stupid sometimes it's painful to watch.

Actually, I think the hostility on both sides centers around the capital gains (passive income) rates being so much lower than the "active" earner rates. I don't really want to spin the thread off on a tangent, but that battle is the source of hostility from both sides, and it has everything to do with being rich (my earlier point about your money working for you).

Frequently the working poor or the lazy are used in the arguments, but I can tell you from professional experience that it is very frequent to see a hardworking professional or business owner pay a much higher effective tax rate than a passive investor - even if they both show the same net income. The passive investor is the "rich" guy, and the hostility is not limited to income strata... (there is every reason for the working professional to feel unfairly treated). Which is why I define rich the way I do. And in America, being "rich" carries the special privilege of a lower effective tax rate based on a lower base rate and numerous income deferrments/exclusions/offsets/shelters.

 

[AViking]

Wealth is how much you are worth, not how much you make. Lots of people make tons of money and are broke. They might have gotten caught buying an overpriced piece of property for example.

 

[fskimospy]

Democrats that want to tax "the wealthy" don't understand that. Taxes are a function of income, not wealth. The left in this country are so stupid sometimes it's painful to watch.

From the research I've seen variation in income predicts about 40% of the variance in wealth. For a single factor that's pretty damn high. Something to think about before declaring people painfully stupid.

 

[BoberFett]

Actually, I think the hostility on both sides centers around the capital gains (passive income) rates being so much lower than the "active" earner rates. I don't really want to spin the thread off on a tangent, but that battle is the source of hostility from both sides, and it has everything to do with being rich (my earlier point about your money working for you).

Frequently the working poor or the lazy are used in the arguments, but I can tell you from professional experience that it is very frequent to see a hardworking professional or business owner pay a much higher effective tax rate than a passive investor - even if they both show the same net income. The passive investor is the "rich" guy, and the hostility is not limited to income strata... (there is every reason for the working professional to feel unfairly treated). Which is why I define rich the way I do. And in America, being "rich" carries the special privilege of a lower effective tax rate based on a lower base rate and numerous income deferrments/exclusions/offsets/shelters.

LTCG must take into account inflation.

 

[Vic]

I dont think of rich in terms of income but in terms of wealth. Somebody making 250K a year has a high income. But if they spend it foolishly they can still be middle class or even poor. Rich to me is somebody with enough wealth they dont need to work another day in their life.

Correct. Income is a path to wealth but by itself does not make one wealthy.
Assets are wealth. When one's assets are sufficient that they generate their income at a reasonably high level, then one can considered rich or wealthy.

We call it capitalism for a reason.

 

[BoberFett]

From the research I've seen variation in income predicts about 40% of the variance in wealth. For a single factor that's pretty damn high. Something to think about before declaring people painfully stupid.

People who earn more "might" have more? Say it ain't so! 40% seems awfully low, considering how much hatred Democrats heap upon high wage earners.

 

[Vic]

Democrats that want to tax "the wealthy" don't understand that. Taxes are a function of income, not wealth. The left in this country are so stupid sometimes it's painful to watch.

Sure they do, that's why they want to increase the capital gains tax.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think you are worthless.................but I am struggling to think of something you are more valuable than..................

Let me help you then. I am heterosexual, you fucking worthless bigot.

Oops, sorry. That wasn't very Christian of me. You are of priceless value but your currency to yourself is poor because of your bigotry. You collaborate with and are an accomplice to the very insanity that has so damaged your race. It's so damn sad. And because I see you so well and know so well what you are and have tried to save you from it, you now seek to try to hurt me. You are the bigot. You are the one with the defect. Why do you try to insult me? It's because you know you are guilty. Instead of being an asshole to me, get over yourself and your bigotry and you'll be a much better person. You might even say something nice to me. Best wishes.

 

[Moonbeam]

I know a man who don't got much but is as rich as the richest person on earth. He has everything on the planet that he wants.

I read about another one, a Zen thingi guy who lamented when robbed of his rice bowl, his only possession, that he couldn't give the thief the moon. I know what that feels like.

 

[fskimospy]

People who earn more "might" have more? Say it ain't so! 40% seems awfully low, considering how much hatred Democrats heap upon high wage earners.

It's not 'might', it's a statistical evaluation of the proportion of wealth that income affects.

When it comes to social science a single factor accounting for 40% of the variance is pretty significant.

EDIT: Sure there's a lot more to the equation than simply income, but I don't think it's right that people here are trying to separate the two so much in their discussion. They are (unsurprisingly) linked.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

All I know is that I'm worthless and lots of folk here hate me.

You're a unique and awesome human being. I may not understand you sometimes...but I'm OK with that. Self actualization is a beautiful thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization

 

[BoberFett]

It's not 'might', it's a statistical evaluation of the proportion of wealth that income affects.

When it comes to social science a single factor accounting for 40% of the variance is pretty significant.

And the other factors? Inheritance? Fairies? Money Trees?

Without the rest of the data, your 40% figure is useless.