Who are the "rich"

[TruePaige]

"Wealthy" = net worth over 1 million, income over 150K
"Rich" = net worth over 3 million, income over 300K
"Filthy Rich" = net worth over 10 million, income over 600K
"Stinking Rich" = net worth over 25 million, income over 1.2 million.

I like this one.

 

[nobodyknows]

The question itself is lame, because it's a matter of perspective.

OTOH, it's easy enough to define people who are definitely rich.

If you were a member of one of the 13,000 families who were the primary beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts, you're rich.

If you don't know how many houses you own, you're rich.

If you have a personal assistant who takes care of all the details and arrangements, you're rich.

If the only times you drive are for pleasure in your automobile collection, you're rich. Otherwise, the car picks you up.

If you don't have the vaguest idea as to the cost of anything, like gas, food, insurance, airline tickets and whatnot, you're rich.

If you haven't lifted a finger doing basic tasks like cleaning, laundry, cooking, etc in so long you can't remember, you're probably rich.

If you have a live-in nanny who takes the kids to private school, picks them up, tutors them, you're probably rich.

If your income falls consistently in the top .3%, you're rich, because that's where the income curve goes vertical...

LOL, that's a good post, worhty of it's own thread.

You know you're rich if.......

you don't have to worry about cooking, cleaning, or grocery shopping.

you don't know how the clothes got in your closet

You have a car and driver to take you where you want, when you want

etc.

 

[Zebo]

Yes Jhhnn's description is accurate however top .3% income is pretty meaningless. Some people have no income. Is the guy who sold Baja Fresh to Wendy's for 700 million rich even though he's retired in St johns for last 5 years? Are the dozens of J&J heirs rich when all they do is ski Aspen or gamble in Monaco?

 

[amdhunter]

About three fiddy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ah, but there is where you are wrong. The concept of the "rich" is one that is deeply embedded into our tax system and politics. When someone talks about bushs tax cuts benefiting only the rich, or steeper progressive taxes hurting only the rich, we have start thinking "Who exactly are the rich?"

If anything, this thread has shown that the definition of rich is VERY variable. An, in some cases, those here fall into "the evil rich guy" category of others unknowingly.

Remember, with all these definitions of rich, that our taxing laws are being based on this variable notion of what rich is.

Theoretically, our taxes should be progressive based on such parameters, but they're not, not at all.

A US income distribution graph rises slowly to ~$1M/yr, then turns vertical. The point at which the income distribution graph goes vertical, at the 99.7 percentile, is where the actual tax rate begins to decline. A family making $300K- $1M is entirely likely to be paying a much higher tax rate than those making what the top 400 made in 2007, which averaged 17% on $263M.

For the purposes of sane discussion, only incomes in that top .3% really need to be considered wealthy. The rest of us are merely more or less well off when viewed in general terms. I'm sure somebody will offer that there are exceptions, but it's important to remember that they are exceptions... and also that income and assets, real wealth, aren't necessarily directly related- exceptions to the rule, again. Capitalism dictates that it takes money to make money, after all. Enormous incomes are based on enormous amounts of capital at work in the general sense.

One of the remarkable things about the current situation is that upper middle class people believe that taxes really are progressive when they're not. They think that because they pay a lot in taxes that people whose incomes are even higher actually pay more, when that's demonstrably not true at all... They also think they're "rich" when they're not. Upper income families whose income is derived from earnings rather than investments are every bit as vulnerable to the effects of unemployment as the rest of us- they just have further to fall.

Truly wealthy families are financially indestructible, because the spend only a small % of their incomes, anyway, reinvest the rest. Even if they get caught up in a financial crisis, they seldom have to liquidate assets to maintain their lifestyles. Fairly high taxes of any sort limit only the growth of their fortunes, not their lifestyles.

 

[nobodyknows]

Yes Jhhnn's description is accurate however top .3% income is pretty meaningless. Some people have no income. Is the guy who sold Baja Fresh to Wendy's for 700 million rich even though he's retired in St johns for last 5 years? Are the dozens of J&J heirs rich when all they do is ski Aspen or gamble in Monaco?

SO you know you're rich if:

All you do is ski in Aspen in the winter and gamble in Monaco in the summer

you own your own island

you are a present or past CEO of Exxon

etc.

And there may be a few, but it would be damn few people who are rich that have no income. If you have 700 million just sitting in a checking account making 1% interest that's still 7 million/year.

 

[Zebo]

Theoretically, our taxes should be progressive based on such parameters, but they're not, not at all.

A US income distribution graph rises slowly to ~$1M/yr, then turns vertical. The point at which the income distribution graph goes vertical, at the 99.7 percentile, is where the actual tax rate begins to decline. A family making $300K- $1M is entirely likely to be paying a much higher tax rate than those making what the top 400 made in 2007, which averaged 17% on $263M.

For the purposes of sane discussion, only incomes in that top .3% really need to be considered wealthy. The rest of us are merely more or less well off when viewed in general terms. I'm sure somebody will offer that there are exceptions, but it's important to remember that they are exceptions... and also that income and assets, real wealth, aren't necessarily directly related- exceptions to the rule, again. Capitalism dictates that it takes money to make money, after all. Enormous incomes are based on enormous amounts of capital at work in the general sense.

One of the remarkable things about the current situation is that upper middle class people believe that taxes really are progressive when they're not. They think that because they pay a lot in taxes that people whose incomes are even higher actually pay more, when that's demonstrably not true at all... They also think they're "rich" when they're not. Upper income families whose income is derived from earnings rather than investments are every bit as vulnerable to the effects of unemployment as the rest of us- they just have further to fall.

Truly wealthy families are financially indestructible, because the spend only a small % of their incomes, anyway, reinvest the rest. Even if they get caught up in a financial crisis, they seldom have to liquidate assets to maintain their lifestyles. Fairly high taxes of any sort limit only the growth of their fortunes, not their lifestyles.

Indeed. There was a study I read from a Tulane economist (looking for it now) who said taxes are largely flat, and high, from middle all the way up to upper class paying ~35%. Yes even a plumber making 50K pays 35% when factoring in all the other taxes in addition to Federal. e.g. excise, property, state, sales, utilities and so forth.

It's only you get to rich does it lower tremendously because many taxes are insignificant % compared to income and type of income.

Truly wealthy benefit in times like these the most. Snap up assets for pennies on the dollar and ride it out because they can unlike 99% of Americans selling.

 

[BoberFett]

Dave's definition of rich: anyone who can manage to stay employed and makes more than him.

So basically, everyone?

 

[cubby1223]

Q: Who are the "rich"?
A: Anyone who the "left" deems they are entitled to take money from.

 

[nobodyknows]

Q: Who are the "rich"?
A: Anyone who the "left" deems they are entitled to take money from.

Q. Who are the poor?

A: Anyone the "right" can manipulate into a position where they can be used and abused for their profit.

 

[JMapleton]

Go out to eat wherever you want to, whenever you want to.
Get whatever car you want, trade it in within 2 years just because you can.
Take trips wherever you want, whenever you want.
Replace air conditioners or heaters, pay cash for them.

Being rich is being able to pay for all your taxes, everything you need, reasonably everything you want, and not have to worry about money.

You got it right on. But I would put an asterisk next it for people with low expectations. I don't consider someone with no desire to own anything, but can still manage to get by to be rich, at least not in an economic sense, maybe philosophical.

Being rich is being able to afford the things you want without compromise.

 

[nonlnear]

Q. Who are the poor?

There is no spoon.

 

[Deudalus]

Being rich is being able to afford the things you want without compromise.

That's pretty much it.

Like, I bought a Mercedes GL. I had courtside seats to the Hornets last year. I did a lot of things but now I wish I would have saved that money instead.

If I were rich, I wouldn't look at it that way because those purchases would not be large purchases anymore.

A Gulfstream Jet would be the Mercedes or NBA tickets.

 

[cubby1223]

Q. Who are the poor?

A: Anyone the "right" can manipulate into a position where they can be used and abused for their profit.

Q: Who are the poor?
A: Anyone the "left" can manipulate to gain and maintain political power.


Besides, who profits off the poor? Everyone knows, including the "left", that the profit is in using and abusing the "rich".

 

[Argo]

I heard the number 250k a year thrown around somewhere. I believe that might be the "official" cut off line according to IRS.

 

[nobodyknows]

Q: Who are the poor?
A: Anyone the "left" can manipulate to gain and maintain political power.


Besides, who profits off the poor? Everyone knows, including the "left", that the profit is in using and abusing the "rich".

Get real, the poor are the cheap labor. The cheaper you can make them work the more profit for those with money to invest or who own businesses.

The rich sit on their asses chewing their fingernails while waiting for their next "opportunity", a.k.a. "victim".

On a serious note this country is all about compromise, but the right has had it so good for so long they aren't willing to compromise.

I guess God spoke to them and told them that the "left" are bad people?? If something doesn't change the shit WILL hit the fan. It's only a matter of time.

 

[spidey07]

I heard the number 250k a year thrown around somewhere. I believe that might be the "official" cut off line according to IRS.

That's just class warfare brought to you by Obama. 250K is most certainly not rich. It's enough to live a decent life, have some nice things, save for retirement, but that's about it. You're still working most everyday to earn it.