Who are the "rich"

[Cogman]

What would you classify as a "rich" person? The top 25%, 2%, 1%? And then, what would you classify as a rich salary? 100k, 200k, 500k?

IDK, some of you might find this particularly enlightening.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

I found it particularly interesting that over half of Americans earn less then 33k. It was also interesting that to be in the top 25% of wage earners, you only have to make about 67k

 

[cubeless]

meeee!!!!

but you can't just count salary...

and when i look at the numbers it always makes me crazy since i can't begin to fathom how so many people have all the shit they have when i'm 5 times wealthier than they are...

then i remember that i just am cheap and don't use credit to by shit...

 

[spidey07]

You are rich when your money is your sole source of income and your net worth constantly increases at the same time. So probably around 500k for single, maybe 750-1M for couple/family.

But according to current rhetoric if you make enough to have a few nice things and save for retirement, you're rich.

Also remember that in a very large percentage of households the lady doesn't work or has very little income so that skews that stats making it look like people make less than they actually do.

 

[Turin39789]

Top 10%, but it does vary by locality. I'm hoping to approach it in the next few years and I look forward to the higher taxes.

 

[MJinZ]

Rich people have net worth in excess of 1 million.

Well-off middle class people make over $100k.

 

[PingSpike]

Anyone that makes more than me right now and what I reasonably expect to make in the near future.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Top 10%, but it does vary by locality. I'm hoping to approach it in the next few years and I look forward to the higher taxes.

You consider the top 10% "rich"? Seriously? There is no way that $113K a year is "rich." Even in my area, which has a very low cost of living.

I also hope the "look forward to higher taxes" was a joke. If not, no one is preventing you from opening your checkbook to pay Uncle Sam now.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Rich people have net worth in excess of 1 million.

Well-off middle class people make over $100k.

This is a more accurate description.

 

[Carmen813]

anyone who isn't me!

 

[JeepinEd]

Top 10%, but it does vary by locality. I'm hoping to approach it in the next few years and I look forward to the higher taxes.

In California, if you make $47K, you are considered wealthy and are worthy of the 2nd highest tax bracket of 9.8%. People who make over $1000,0000 get the privilege of going into the 10.8% tax bracket.

 

[spidey07]

This is a more accurate description.

A networth of million doesn't really cut it these days. You'd still have to work so I don't consider that anywhere near rich.

And LOL at the top 10% comment. That isn't rich. That's any white collar professional, aka middle class.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

A networth of million doesn't really cut it these days. You'd still have to work so I don't consider that anywhere near rich.

Oops, my bad, you're right. I didn't see the "net worth" comment.

And LOL at the top 10% comment. That isn't rich. That's any white collar professional, aka middle class.

I don't know why people on the left just don't define rich as "anyone who makes more than me" and be done with it. That is what they really feel, I think.

 

[Cogman]

You consider the top 10% "rich"? Seriously? There is no way that $113K a year is "rich." Even in my area, which has a very low cost of living.

I also hope the "look forward to higher taxes" was a joke. If not, no one is preventing you from opening your checkbook to pay Uncle Sam now.

The thing is, that is still the top 10% by just about any definition, you leave the middle around 25%. 114k, or the top 10% can easily be construed as upper class.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I think 'Adjusted Gross Income' is less than 10% of the equation. There is a lot more than 'income tax' that has to be factored so those charts are, at best, misleading.

Net worth is 80% of the 'rich' equation.

Your income may be 'X' ---- but if your liabilities are '1.25*X' you're screwed.





--

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The thing is, that is still the top 10% by just about any definition, you leave the middle around 25%. 114k, or the top 10% can easily be construed as upper class.

Upper middle class -- maybe. Rich? No way. If you look at the population of the middle class and assign boundaries to lower, middle, and upper, that income level might be upper middle class. Most of us define "rich" as pretty much being able to buy or do whatever you want because you can afford it. Spidey's definition of earning enough money off of money to live well wasn't bad either.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I think 'Adjusted Gross Income' is less than 10% of the equation. There is a lot more than 'income tax' that has to be factored so those charts are, at best, misleading.

--

Good point.

 

[dullard]

To me, there is a difference between being rich and being wealthy. Someone with a high income is rich (regardless of spending). Someone who doesn't spend all of his/her income will eventually become wealthy (regardless of income). Richness is an abundance of something (even if that item is used immediately). Wealth is the accumulation over time of that something (ie not all of it is used).

You may not agree with that definition, but it works fairly well in my world view. Most people don't distinguish between them and that lack of difference causes a lot of fights on Anandtech.

To me, if you make over double the average salary, you are approaching the rich zone. True, there is rich and then there is really rich. Those are different, but I'm talking about rich not REALLY rich. I say, if you make less than $100k, you are not rich. Just over $100k is definately in the transition zone to being rich (varies a bit by location, since someone making $100k in an area with average $200k salaries would not be rich, but most places on earth don't approach that level of average salary). If you make well over $100k, then you are definately rich.

In terms of your link above, a $100k income would put people in the top ~15% in the rich category.

Wealth is quite relative. If you spend little, then a smaller pile of money would be a lot of wealth to you. If you live a jetsetter lifestyle, then that small pile of money is nothing to you. I say you are wealthy if you can retire for life with what you currently have (assuming a reasonable return on investments and that you don't drastically change your lifestyle). For example, if a typical Anandtech poster spent $50k per year (with 3.4% yearly inflation adjustments), and dies in 50 years, he/she would need a pile of at least $1 million dollars (post tax and earning 8% return) to be wealthy.

 

[her209]

To me, there is a difference between being rich and being wealthy. Someone with a high income is rich (regardless of spending). Someone who doesn't spend all of his/her income will become wealthy (regardless of income). Richness is an abundance of something (even if that item is used). Wealth is the accumulation of something (ie not all of it is used).

You may not agree with that definition, but it works fairly well in my world view. Most people don't distinguish between them and that lack of difference causes a lot of fights on Anandtech.

I forgot which comedian said it best, but to paraphrase them: a basketball player that gets paid millions is rich, the owner that pays the basketball players is wealthy.

 

[MJinZ]

A networth of million doesn't really cut it these days. You'd still have to work so I don't consider that anywhere near rich.

And LOL at the top 10% comment. That isn't rich. That's any white collar professional, aka middle class.

Why would you have to work if you have a million dollars of equity/cash? Maybe if you wanted to live in a Million dollar home in the city, but certainly not for any reasonable expenses (like $1k - $2k a month rent or a decent Condo).

People do work however, for fun and purpose even when they have money.

Interest income alone would probably net you a good chunk of the cost of living each year.

 

[werepossum]

I for one welcome our new socialist overlords and adopt the progressive position, which is that anyone making more money than I is rich and should therefore be taxed to provide me more stuff.

 

[Brainonska511]

The thing is, that is still the top 10% by just about any definition, you leave the middle around 25%. 114k, or the top 10% can easily be construed as upper class.

There is a big difference though between the guy making $114k/year, and the people making tons of money off of passive income and getting school buildings named after themselves.

 

[Cogman]

There is a big difference though between the guy making $114k/year, and the people making tons of money off of passive income and getting school buildings named after themselves.

True, however there is also a big difference between the guy earning 200k, 300k, 400k, or even 500k per year and the guy that is getting school buildings named after him. Do you consider any of those income brackets rich?

 

[simpletron]

I found it particularly interesting that over half of Americans earn less then 33k. It was also interesting that to be in the top 25% of wage earners, you only have to make about 67k

AGI != salary. Married and two kids would get at least the standard deduction of 10700 and 4 personal exemption of 3400 each, so a salary of 57178 would still put them into the lowest 50%.

 

[Linflas]

I for one welcome our new socialist overlords and adopt the progressive position, which is that anyone making more money than I is rich and should therefore be taxed to provide me more stuff.

Actually their goal is the magic 51% of the population dependent on entitlements in some way.

 

[obamanation]

You must not have gotten the memo... the "rich" are anyone who earns more money or has more money than them.. See how I said "has"... Because one can certainly earn less money than someone else yet at the same time have more money than them. There are plenty of people with fantastic salaries whom still manage to bankrupt themselves because they're completely inept when it comes to finances.. Public education manages to fail at teaching a lot of things people 'ought to know'.