Which I haven't had for a while now

and a family that I love, especially my Daddy. (Middle aged woman here, still calling him "Daddy) LOL

someone making $200K a year? If they have debts, a mortgage, car payments, and so on, they're middle class, not rich. The ignorance of what constitutes actual wealth is, probably, as much as anything, a result of the near-elimination of any concept of the working class as such among most Americans, who think they're all middle class.

In some parts of the country you can live pretty well on an income that wouldn't go nearly as far somewhere else (e.g., New York). It's also important to distinguish net worth from cash flow. If you own a home worth $200K, how much equity do you have in it? If it's paid for you have an asset worth $200K. Will you actually be able to sell it for $200K, or is that number just what you paid for it or what the tax assessor says it's worth? If you can't sell it for $200K it isn't worth that. If it's mortgaged for $200K it isn't worth anything, net.

On the other hand, if your annual income is $200K a year you can be comfortable in most cities and very comfortable in some - depending on how much you are spending. You can be making a whole buttload of money but if you are in debt up to your eyeballs you won't feel rich at all. I'd call "rich" more of a sliding scale than an absolute category.

A real estate guy once told me that the people who buy the really high-end houses (these days a $200K house isn't anything fancy in most cities) don't have mortgages. They pay cash. If you can buy a million-dollar house with cash, that's rich.

If a person with a $200,000 income diverts enough of his/her income into assets (real estate, stocks, bonds) then over time, maybe he/she will be rich. If all the income is spent on maintaining lifestyle, then he/she is probably only middle class.

in my book that would be somewhere around 5 million in assets.

So even a billion more or less isn't all that much.

without liquidating durable assets, you are rich. Bill Maher for example, is rich, he wrote that check to the President's campaign without having to sell a house or business.

Unfortunately there are no definitions of rich or even of middle class. Studies have consistently found that over 90% of American identify themselves as middle class. Obviously that can't be so, but there it is.

is that the destruction of anything like "working class" consciousness was a deliberate act on the part of both major political parties going back to at least the early industrial era of the mid-19th century. Because of the American fear of socialism and because Americans liked to lie to themselves and say "we have no 'working class' in the European sense of 'peasantry'" (which is not really the same thing as an industrial proletariat, but of course the result is that most Americans think they belong to the petit bourgeoisie even though they clearly don't).

there is no clear definition of what middle class is and yet the majority think they are or were until 2008.

They were losing them to prisoners. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Some of us haven't been on vacation in years while others travel many times a year.

Some of us struggle and have to pick which need to get.

Some of us don't have the luxury of owning a house or being able to trade in our car when we get sick of it and some have no car at all.

We never go on vacation, but just this once I wanted to take a family vacation to Universal Studios in Florida to see the Harry Potter theme park for a high school graduation gift for my daughter. Not going to happen. The best I'm going to be able to do is maybe get her a cheap couch for the apartment she hopes to move into.

To me rich is anything above and beyond being able to buy one home, one car maybe two if each spouse has to drive to work, go to the doctor, and send your kids to college. What really gets me is when people who have 2 or 3 homes, a boat, an RV, a motor cycle, and 3 or 4 $60,000 cars claim not to be rich. Give me a break.

For a family of four, that would mean a safe investment income of around $100,000. (I know there are areas of the country where that might not be enough, but living in those areas is a choice)

Assuming a low risk rate of return of 1.9%, it would take $5,263,158 to generate the $100,000 income without eroding any principal.

So there you have it. Rich means having investments worth more than $5,263,158.

in cash.........do they??? some countries it is popular but here i think of bank owned

Also sometime during the race did not someone pin Mitties down in an interview to his definition of middle class and it was family income of 150K to 350K??? I cant find reference though......

I personally felt rich when I was making $100K a year, which I did for a couple of years several years back. A lot of people think $200K is 'middle class' - not to me - I'd feel like a gazillionaire making that, especially now.

but going with the idea that the median income is 50k and you could basically buy a home in most places with that kind of income and support a family.

What I mean when I say rich is having money to do things you want and not just cover your needs. Multiple cars for fun not out of a need to get to work for two parents, numerous homes, being able to afford vacations around the world with virtually no limit instead of yardville.

There is some grey area into the upper middle class, well off and lower class rich which I simply can't define with a number. Rich in itself might be having so much money you don't need to work but that depends on how you spend whatever boon of money/assets you have. Living frugally you could be rich on much less than someone who travels the world etc and lots of money in of itself just begets more money through investments tax shelters/etc.

200k for a home is just the asset of the home, how long would it take most people with debts to blow 200k? I'd blow through most of that in less than a year paying debt and after putting money into investing for my future/retirement maybe have 20-30k left to blow on something like a car or vacation/consumer crap I don't need.

There's a view on the other side that says if you aren't living in the street off garbage you aren't poor so I guess if your house is worth a couple hundred thousand dollars you're rich as a King.

I live in an inexpensive part of the country. 50k salary will get you living paycheck to paycheck if you have any family to support.

You can not purchase a home with that income. Lower middle class is more like 80-90k salary.

you can't purchase a home with an income of less than $50k? i'm in california, and when i purchased my home in 1996, i was only making about $30k AND supporting a child on my own. my home cost approx. 3x my income, the standard then for mortgages.

2x salary is as far as I would go when purchasing a house. Anything more than that would overextend debt burden. It would not be a stable environment.

If there was good public transportation in my area and I could eliminate fuel/auto insurance/auto maintenance expenses and put those funds towards a mortgage, it may be within reach.

the majority of people working do as well.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-usa-survey-paycheck-idUSBRE88I1BE20120919

My dad bought a house in a decent neighborhood in one of the highest if not the highest property taxes in the US as he raised two kids on his own with just under less than 50k a year for most of his working life.


I can't see lower middle class as 80-90k income per year, that to me is middle-middle class if not bordering on upper.

You may be talking about being comfortable or an ideal situation for a person to have money to save/go on vacations etc.

That was then, this is now. 50k 20 years ago is not 50k today.

50k will allow you to pay your bills, buy your food, fix your car, and replace clothing as it falls apart. Pretty much give you a somewhat comfortable life for going to work every day. Not much more. If you lose your job you could get in big financial trouble easily.

80-90 would allow purchase of a new vehicle from time to time, vacations, and save enough to maintain the same lifestyle in retirement. Also would be able to get a decent buffer for unemployed periods.

50k imo is upper working poor in my area in today's dollars.

You could live off the interest alone at that point. Never having to work a day in your life is my personal definition of rich.

To have enough in the bank that a job loss wouldn't be devastating.
To have enough saved and in medical coverage that an illness wouldn't bankrupt us.
To have enough that there would be no question that my children could get a higher education.
To have everyday needs ( needs not wants) met without question.

I think it's hard to draw a line and say "this amount makes you rich" because the cost of living varies so much across the nation.

Divide it in half. 2% of the people own this half. They're rich.

The top 10% have average net worth of $3.6 million. Someone at the 95th percentile has a net worth of $1.72 million. To get in the 1% club, you need a net worth of about $10 million.

In 1955 there were 24 tax brackets. Adjusting for inflation, 16 of them affected incomes of over $250,000 for a married couple filing jointly. And that's adjusted income, after all deductions (personal deductions for family members, home mortgage deduction, etc.), so the real income for that level was even higher.

In fact, to show how ridiculous this whole argument is, here's the chart:

Screen clip from the Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History of The Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html).

Ignore, for the moment, the tax rates on the brackets, and just look at the brackets themselves. Is $200,000 rich? The correct answer is "More than some, less than others" (with an optional "Duh!&quot .

And then look at the tax rates we had in the thick of the Cold War. Tell me again how going back to the Clinton-era tax rates (topping out at much lower rates at much lower top incomes) is "socialism" and "redistribution"?

You are chronically sub-rich.

I know it sounds small , but not being able to afford a gallon of milk sucks. Been there way too often and thought to myself, if I just had *Money* I would always be able to buy milk . . . then I would be rich.

Lumberjack Jeff noted that the top 2% have 50% of the wealth in this country. I would be happy with that number or the top 3%.

We're talking about net worth in the seven figures and annual income above $750K

Edited to add:

When we talk about Rich, Middle Class and Poor, it helps to think about what groups have similar experiences and challenges due to their income and wealth.

People in the top 3% and above have very similar life experiences and lack of challenges due to money.

People in the 4%-85% have similar life experiences and challenges. Obviously, we can split the middle class into three parts, people in the 4% to 20% percentiles have much in common, people in the 21-60% percentiles have a lot in common and people in the 60% to 84% have a lot in common in terms of life experiences and challenges due to money.

People in the 85%-99%, i.e. the poor in my scenario probably also have a lot in common.

and not go bankrupt from paying for their healthcare. That seems to be a pretty good standard-bearer to me.