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

[fskimospy]

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

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

Of course it isn't useless; it accounts for 40% of the variance. I'm not sure of any credible analyst that would look at a factor that predicted that much that would say it was useless. That's absurd.

 

[Vic]

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.

Out here on the Left Coast, Democrats are the high wage earners. Just FYI.

 

[Screech]

well that's pretty obvious. "more than me".

 

[BoberFett]

Of course it isn't useless; it accounts for 40% of the variance. I'm not sure of any credible analyst that would look at a factor that predicted that much that would say it was useless. That's absurd.

40% of the glass is empty. Now tell me what the other 60% is.

 

[BoberFett]

Out here on the Left Coast, Democrats are the high wage earners. Just FYI.

Yeah, but we're not supposed to hate those ones, they drive Priuses. It's those conservative high earners that we're supposed to hate, because Koch Brothers, WalMart, rabble, rabble, rabble.

 

[fskimospy]

40% of the glass is empty. Now tell me what the other 60% is.

You tell me 40% of your home buying decision is based on the price. Am I now aware of an action that I can take that will make you more likely to buy?

 

[Vic]

Yeah, but we're not supposed to hate those ones, they drive Priuses. It's those conservative high earners that we're supposed to hate, because Koch Brothers, WalMart, rabble, rabble, rabble.

There oughta be law against driving a Prius in the left lane! OMG..

I could go into lengthy detail about why the GOP has some difficulty winning out here in the Pacific Northwest, but suffice to say it's not Koch or Walmart that hurt them. More like Palin and her teabaggers.

 

[Oldgamer]

i see a lot of disdain for the rich here, but to my knowledge nobody has defined who is in this category.

if i were to have say 500$k, would i be rich? or would it take 1$M or 5$M or more?

would my income matter, or my net worth, or both?

Anything above 250k yearly for one person. That would be considered wealthy. But then again, wealth isn't as much what you make as also what you have in the way of investments, tangible reals estate, etc. and that may give someone a larger total worth.

One person can easily live on 60-70k a year. That to me would be a modest middle class income for one person. Lower middle class would be 40k-50k in my opinion (again per person income).

Poverty would be 15-16k per year and below in my opinion.

 

[Atreus21]

We use the universal definition; anyone who has more than me.

I'll revise this: Anyone who has my income + $10,000 annually.

Nobody needs that much money.

 

[Wreckem]

Y'all are all far off on the income levels/definitions of

working class/lower middle class
middle class
upper middle class

 

[Moonbeam]

There oughta be law against driving a Prius in the left lane! OMG..

I could go into lengthy detail about why the GOP has some difficulty winning out here in the Pacific Northwest, but suffice to say it's not Koch or Walmart that hurt them. More like Palin and her teabaggers.

You sure a lack of iodine doesn't cause the right amygdala to swell up? The world's coastlines are covered with liberals.

 

[Vic]

You sure a lack of iodine doesn't cause the right amygdala to swell up? The world's coastlines are covered with liberals.

Nah.. to me, it's that guy with the rundown single wide right next to the highway, with 20 junk cars in the yard, a tarp for a roof, and a big billboard that says Obama is gonna tax us to death! And you just know that he lives on social security and doesn't pay any taxes.
I might like to, but it makes it awfully to vote GOP knowing that he is their base.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nah.. to me, it's that guy with the rundown single wide right next to the highway, with 20 junk cars in the yard, a tarp for a roof, and a big billboard that says Obama is gonna tax us to death! And you just know that he lives on social security and doesn't pay any taxes.
I might like to, but it makes it awfully to vote GOP knowing that he is their base.

I can't help but feeling sad. Imagine to be so far down and then vote to kick yourself in the ass. Even sadder, you're talking about my aunt who died last year and doubtless left Medicare a huge bill. One of those Obama-is-a-traitor-and- a-Kenyan, folk

 

[MagickMan]

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

Which if you also take into account states, and quite a few cities, is over 50% now. Did they forget that the tax breaks ended? :hmm:

 

[Vic]

I can't help but feeling sad. Imagine to be so far down and then vote to kick yourself in the ass. Even sadder, you're talking about my aunt who died last year and doubtless left Medicare a huge bill. One of those Obama-is-a-traitor-and- a-Kenyan, folk

Oh yeah, I know plenty of them. Our Midwest and east coast friends here might not realize it, but they are the public face of the tea party on the west coast.
And they are incredibly unreasonable and petty in local government issues out here. Like how the tea party here is blocking the desperately needed CRC bridge project in Portland but the tea party in Northern Kentucky supports the almost identical Brent Spence bridge replacement project there. And dozens of other local issues where they won't play ball solely because their guy didn't get elected.
It's ridiculous. I don't support the Democrats but I will not vote GOP until the tea party is gone.

 

[brianmanahan]

Simply because you have to ask means you are not rich.

lol, true. i may yet make it someday though.

Apparently a majority of P&Ners make that much based on their posts.

serious question dave - if you became rich all of a sudden (inheritance, lawsuit, business, etc), what would you do? what would be the appropriate way to handle it?

 

[dmcowen674]

lol, true. i may yet make it someday though.

serious question dave - if you became rich all of a sudden (inheritance, lawsuit, business, etc), what would you do? what would be the appropriate way to handle it?

Get the hell out of the U.S. cesspit.

 

[brianmanahan]

Get the h**l out of the U.S. cesspit.

is that why you want currently rich people to leave the US? for their betterment?

 

[Vic]

Get the hell out of the U.S. cesspit.

Ok.. who let Dave out of his cage?

 

[Tango]

Get the hell out of the U.S. cesspit.

That's quite irrational. Getting out of the US is a very good move for people who are not at the very top of the food chain.

I am in the much maligned category of the so-called "one percent" and live (and have assets and incomes) on both sides of the Atlantic, so it is very easy for me to make a comparison.

If you have income below 150,000-200,000 Europe is a *much* better place to live. But above that the higher you go the better you are treated in the United States.

Honestly, it is quite ridiculous how little taxes I pay here and (oh, the shock!) I would be very much in favor of raising, dramatically, the tax level on people at my level of income, especially those generated from capital gains.

 

[hans030390]

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.

Define "lavish," because I certainly would be able to live a very lavish lifestyle relative to the one I am now if I made that much annually (and I am much more fortunate than most).

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.

I make around half of that, live arguably more than a modest lifestyle, and retirement wise have a great forecast (granted, I have a long way to go). As you can see, these comparisons are very difficult, which is what I tried to highlight in my first post.

In order to better facilitate this discussion, we'd need to establish a baseline for what makes a "modest" lifestyle, and we'd also need to compare cost of living. Also, do you have a family? With kids?

If that $151K could be gone so quickly and you are worried enough to bring that up, perhaps you do not have a good monetary contingency plan in place, or perhaps you are very lucky with your current job and skillset and would otherwise be unable to make nearly that much money or would have a hard time securing a similar job entirely if you had to. I'm just curious, because usually such points don't pop up in these discussions because it is implied that at any point in time our life situations can dramatically change for the better or worse. (BTW, not accusing or assuming, just bringing up possible points of discussion. I'm am far from a good example when it comes to solid monetary habits.)

I think we can both agree that the vast majority of people in this country would like to be in your shoes from a monetary perspective. And the same is true even for my situation. Thus, in that regard, we could both be considered "rich" if you wanted to discuss it from that perspective.

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

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

Actually, it's far from useless. From a statistical standpoint, that's a fairly high figure and thus means it is statistically relevant (i.e. useful).

You can always argue that it's better to have more information that what is currently given, so, yes, having the other figures would also help the discussion be more meaningful. But, in and of itself, having the "full picture" or not doesn't change the usefulness or relevance of the individual figures. They still hold their same inherent value.

Perhaps you would like to research that and find those missing values?

 

[boomerang]

Honestly, it is quite ridiculous how little taxes I pay here and (oh, the shock!) I would be very much in favor of raising, dramatically, the tax level on people at my level of income, especially those generated from capital gains.

Would you or do you willingly write a check for a bigger amount at tax time to the government here? You can pay more in taxes right now without waiting for the tax increase.

If you don't, why is that?

 

[shortylickens]

When you can halt everything and take a vacation to the Caymens at the drop of a hat.

 

[werepossum]

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.

That's pretty much my definition of rich. If you can choose not to work and still have sufficient income or accumulated wealth to live the same upper class lifestyle, you are rich. It's entirely subjective though; to most of the world, virtually everyone here would be considered rich because of what we own and what we can buy.

 

[boomerang]

“I do think at a certain point you've made enough money”

The guy that said that hasn't reached that threshold yet. I wonder if he ever will?