Yes, $70K is "rich". Period.

It's not "broke" or "poor" but to call someone who makes 70k where the average apartment rent is... $2,100 for a 1-Bedroom ($25,000 a year, 36% of 70k) And the average home price is... $455,500 which has a 30-year fixed monthly cost of $2,142, again about 36% of income. These costs don't include any utilities, transit costs, car payments of you have one (parking for said car), oh and college loans of you still have those.

To call that rich is ridiculous.

House: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/best-places-to-live-2013-single-family-homes/#.Vpu6Zew8KnM

Apartment: https://www.jumpshell.com/posts/average-rent-in-boston

I'm a single guy so I don't have to pay some of those but to say 70k is "rich" is just off the wall.

and I'll take that answer for an expensive region like Boston, NYC, SF etc...

But having disposable income after you basic need costs could be classified as such.

In the metro West, average rent for a 1 bedroom is still in the $1700 range. 70k is not rich in places that have a higher cost of living. 70k in Montana or NH would be rich, but not in MA.

Do the math. What's left over after taxes and the costs associated with living in my area.

Yes 70k would be great in some areas for one person but it's not in Boston, this area has a high cost of living.

Do the math, 70k isn't rich and if you want to live in the same town as where you work you are paying upwards of 36% of your income to housing. Most guidance suggests never paying over 30% to housing costs.

People can post "yes it is" to me all day long but I can tell you it's not.

Especially for a married couple. Thats only 2 people bringing in 35k each. Not at all rich in a lot of cities.

But $32k in Boston now? A studio apartment alone can run $1,200+ per month, and that's in a bad area.

If you're single that's actually very comfortable

I don't know a single Sanders supporter that buys that horseshit.

This crap has been what's kept me away from Clinton this whole time, and it keeps getting worse.

Considering the major screw-ups that that crowd and it's Exalted Leader have made in just the last week, I think it has finally broken thru the cognitive dissonance that The Coronation is off. Like most every beast as it's meets it's end, it howls it's loudest.

America has come to a decision.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

There is a cost of living factor, too.

Finally, I've spent time with Americans who are really, really rich. They could never manage on a mere $250K a year.

They have bought far too many toys to live within their means.

There is nowhere in the US with the exception of a few very special neighborhoods, that you can't live very comfortably well off (rich) at 250k/yr.

really, really rich. In this country, that only obscures how much people who are really, really rich have.

FWIW, though the people I know who are really, really rich have no debt whatsoever, unless they're trying to play games of some kind or not touch their investments. For example, I know a woman worth easily about $200 million dollars who took out a mortgage to buy a $500,000 home because she doesn't want anyone to know she's rich.

inflation adjusted dollar back.

And I know that you actually know what that means.

And that's for SFO.

Here's my definition of "rich": you have enough money that you do not ever have to work. Here is a graph that makes clear just how preposterous your 70k is rich claim is:



http://www.lcurve.org/

That red line on the right, the one ascending upwards, that is where "rich" is. It is an entirely different world.

If you can afford a new exotic sports car, you are in the elite class.

I still think comparing working class and poor Americans that must pay 1000USD/month for basic food and shelter to people in 3rd world countries is disingenuous, but I will sign on to this OP.

K&R.

A lot of people are in for a shock when they end up on SS at $12K.

the highest median income community in the US.! Some of its suburbs are though.

to eat less, give up at home, do without needed medication, drive a car that often doesn't start, etc..

They think a necessity is any noun that they can use in the sentence, "Oh no! I just can't live without my <blank>."

You don't, so I'd suggest you stop and think before trying to substitute what looks

like your own personal resentment with objective analysis.

guessed you would be wrong.

and if you guessed YOU would be wrong.

P.S. Your debating skills could use some polishing.

based on 2012 data.

you can slide the income bar and see where it falls on the distribution curve. 250Gs is top 3%...

last i checked the middle is somewhere around 50% give or take one standard deviation.

http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/

One might be able to argue that the upper cutoff for middle class is around 135Gs, but 250Gs is well beyond middle class. She's adopted Romney ' s vision of the economy.

That'e probably a legitimate number for the upper end of the middle class.

There's no way around that.

Or maybe $3K by purchasing power.

And this is a rich country by south Asian standards.

After everything gets taken out, most folks in that category are taking home around $13-$14K a month.

Second, a family in that category can be wiped out quite easily by a number of different situations:

1. Loss of the job of the person making that money and having them unable to find another one in 12-18 months.

2. Those 'rich' folks can be wiped out by a serious medical issue happening to a member of their families.

Rich means, you don't have to work and without work you maintain an opulent lifestyle. That's rich.

They can be wiped out...a lot of people can't even go to the doctor or have any luxuries, or even enough food. I should feel sorry for someone who only gets $13-14K a month?

You want to feel sorry for someone? If thats what you want to change the conversation to, feel sorry for folks in Tanzania where the average annual income is less than $500.

In the conversation WE are having about the United States, rich here is not $250/K in income per year.

Your argument about living on $13-14K a month is absurd.

we are talking about at times.

Have you lived at both of those extremes?

And I have no problem with people who have a $250K income. I just don't agree that it's middle class.

Just because a few wealthy people don't "feel" rich because they're wasting $$ hand over fist on crap like private schools, dinners out every night, and hired help does NOT mean they do not have considerable assets from earning 250k over the years. Sure, if you're shit with money and need a new Benz every 2 years, I'm sure it's quite easy to burn thru 250k and feel not "rich" but that doesn't change the fact that it is much MUCH more than "average" Americans live with...hence objectively "rich".
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323300404578205502185873348

"Poor people are amazed by a few trinkets of luxury because life is so hard. "

Are we in bizarro world?! "Rich" means you have tons of disposable income, can save, and are living well in comparison to fellow Americans. I don't know how people are like, "well if the sky fell THEN 250k isn't so much!" Well DUH. Even billionaires can mismanage themselves into debt.

...since once you factor kids and the cost of daycare in your available cash at the end of the month isn't all that great (I know because I'm living it).

Other than that, you're absolutely correct.

$70K isn't "all that great". But it's objectively rich.

...total income? That really makes all the difference in this discussion.

One is based on the range of income of a population.

However, what people usually mean by middle-class is the "middle-class" life style: one is middle-class if one can afford to live in a safe neightborhood, buy a house, to attend good schools, have health care, have a pension. By this criteria, it's true that an income come of $100,000 or more is necessary to be middle class in America.

The emphasis should be on acknowledging that until middle-class privileges are available to the middle 50% of the population, we have an unjust society.

$70,000 isn't rich, not even close. Even in No. FL, which has a much lower cost of living than most of the nation, $70,000 buys you a house and a couple of cars and you and your kids clothes and school expenses. It wouldn't pay for a fancy house, fancy cars or a nice vacation. In CA you would live in an apt. for $70,000 and couldn't afford a house. I lived in Silicon Valley in CA and bought a 1400 sq. ft. townhouse in 1984 for $110,000, 5 years later it sold for $415,000, so that tells you about the cost of housing there. It certainly hasn't decreased, has only gone up in the past decades. I think in CA and NY $200,00 is the start of rich and everywhere else $100,00. The median is the middle of middle class, there's an upper and a lower range too.

And it is. $70K in India and most other countries is rich. "Rich" is relative to the cost of living. The cost of living is extremely high in the US compared to most other countries. In the US, medical bills can reach at least twice that amount in a short period. A home cooked meal for 4 with the simplest dishes is $10-$20. That amount can feed a family of 4 in many countries for a month. Taxes take 15-20%. While a family in the US making $70K is not starving, they don't hSve much left, if anything at the end of the month.

I wish people would let go of the illusion called "Middle Class".
In a nation of multi-billionaires & broke homeless, the Centerpoint AKA the Middle of incomes actually rests in the millionaire range.
THAT'S the True Middle.

We're not talking about how many people have that income status.
We're talking about purely income.

What people like to call "Middle Class" is REALLY Poor First Class.
Think of it like Private & Private First Class. A slight distinction in rank but both are at the bottom of the totem pole.

If you work for your money, you are POOR.
If your money works for you, you are RICH.
There ain't no inbetween.

All the so-called "Middle Class" has is a mere taste of what true wealth really is.
A sampling of luxury.
But let that job disappear. Let an illness eat up those medical bills.
And you'll quickly find out how POOR the "Middle Class" really is.

They're just Poor Folks with a slight distinction in rank.
Poor Folks with an illusion of luxury.

The Elite put out that propaganda to keep the Poor Folks from working together.
When someone sees themselves as Middle Class, they'll begin to think of themselves as separate from the Poor Class.
And then you can play the "Middle" against the Poor all day long.
Sprinkle a little wealth on a few of the Poor & watch 'em fight each other.
Everybody's got a price for the Million Dollar Man! Muhuahahahahaha!

One of my first posts on this forum in 2008 was "There's no such thing as the Middle Class".
Quit worrying about the Middle.
You are NOT separate from us Po' Folks.
UNITE!

John Lucas

I was an occupy fan for important but simple reasons. First, they said that they were not against the 1%, they were against policies that benefited the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

Second, they made the demarcation point at 1% in wealth. This is in my opinion where the biggest difference lies between one group of Americans and another in terms of how their life is lived, the risk of becoming poor, the power they have in dealing with the political class, etc.

Because it really IS the power of the few vs. EVERYBODY ELSE.

People think just because they can drive their kids around in their minivans to their soccer field from the suburbs that they have made it. HA!
They have NO IDEA!

Poor people are amazed by a few trinkets of luxury because life is so hard.
The so-called "Middle" just has a few extra little trinkets than the outright Poor.
Sort of like the Poor have a few extra little trinkets than the Homeless.
It's just a matter of degrees, that's all.

But all of those groups are either a crisis or two away from being the Homeless themselves.
And if that's the case, then how "Middle" WERE you.
The Poor recognize how close they are to the chopping block while the "Middle" has a foggy recollection.
ESPECIALLY those who grew up "Middle" from birth.
Those who came to "Middle" from Poor may still be able to keep in tune with this reality.
Keyword: MAY. That taste of luxury can make you easily forget.

Human beings are horrible with understanding math.
How much is a million of anything REALLY? Much less a BILLION?
All they hear is that "illion" on the end & it all washes over them.

I always use this equation to see where people are on this issue.
If you lost 99% of all your money, nearly ALL of your money, where would you be?
They say "Homeless" or "On The Streets".
Then I say if Bill Gates at $50 Billion lost 99% of all his money, nearly ALL of his money, how much would he have left?
Most people can't answer that question or get the math wrong.
I say he would have $500 Million left.
He could lose nearly ALL of his money & still be as rich as an NBA star.
Lost it all & STILL rich! They can't even understand that!

And since money is a momentum-based system, with that $500 Million he could regain his lost wealth very easily.
It takes money to make money.
Hard to save when you're on the street homeless.
But once you have a few million at hand it's easier to get a few more millions.

The reason the "Middle Class" is burdened with the taxing is because the Rich & Wealthy have passed that burden down to them.
But yet you'll see the "Middle Class" more often than not look angrily at the Poor for shouldering this burden.
The reason they look at the Poor first is because in truth they ARE the Poor.
It's who they know best. It's who they are around more than anyone else.
The rich & wealthy don't live among everybody else. You don't see them everyday.

1% vs. 99% is exactly right.
But how many people will truly understand this ratio?
Like I said human beings are horrible with understanding math.

John Lucas

that is what the OP is about.

You have sarcasm in your post as if I said something wrong.
Why is that?

I'm DESTROYING the entire notion of "Middle Class" because there REALLY is no such thing.
If we're to be honest about the TRUE Middle, it's in the millionaire range.
By saying that I'm saying that the current separations between the so-called "Middle", Poor, & Homeless are arbitrary.
It's just Poor of different degrees designed by the Wealthy to keep the Poor divided amongst themselves.

The currently designated "Middle Class" is in most danger of seeing themselves as separate because they have more stuff, more trinkets than the regular Poor & the Homeless.
They have these illusions of wealth that make them a little too comfortable when it comes to fighting for ALL the poor.
A lot of the "Middle Class" in this country is what keeps things like Universal Health Care from happening & political factions like the Republican Conservative Party in business.

The difference between the rank and file in a business versus the managers.
Managers tend to see themselves as above & separate from the rank and file.
The same old House Negro/Field Negro divide in other words.
Both of you workin' for Massa so why are you not teaming up?

What's condescending about all this?
What's with all the snark?

I hate hearing politicians talk about the Middle Class 'cause it's BULLSHIT.
That ain't the middle. Them folks are just Poor First Class.
A higher degree of Po' Folks, that's all.
The people in the outright Poor Class KNOW that they are not too separate from the Homeless category.
The "Middles" may or may not have that understanding.

But if you work for your money, you're POOR.
If your money works for you, you're RICH.
So long as you keep that in mind, you won't forget.
You won't call yourself "Middle" anymore.

John Lucas

Maybe I should buy more scratch tickets.

Everyone living below that level is just another easily replaceable cog in the machine, another brick in the wall, or wildlife to be avoided or confined to a zoo.

There are rare high income people who don't see their fellow humans that way, but generally it's the scum who rise to the top.

and without working you maintain an opulent lifestyle indefinitely.

If you have to go to work everyday, you are not rich. If a single medical issue can wipe you out, you are not rich.

For discussions like these I categorize people into three main categories and three subcategories under each category regarding income and wealth.

Lower Class, which contains lower , middle and upper lower class subcategories.

Middle Class, which contains lower, middle and upper middle class subcategories

and Upper Class, which contains lower, middle and upper upper class subcategories.

upper Middle class for me starts at around $125K/yr in income and goes up to about $300K/yr in income. At $300K/yr you start the lower part of lower Upper class class. The border between lower Upper class and middle Upper class isn't defined by income, it is defined by wealth. At around $7 million in wealth, you are middle Upper class. At that point you can be fired by your job and still live well from that wealth (after taxes you should clear an average of $200K year in income from your investments). You are then 'rich' by my definition. FYI, the border between middle Upper Class and Upper Upper class is at around $20 million in wealth. Which last time I checked is about where the 1% in wealth starts.

You used median income and standard deviations therefrom as the main metric for determining where you believe folks should be categorized. I believe that utilizes only salary income. That is going to distort your results because the middle Upper class and upper Upper class folks main income is not in salary, it is in investment income. So of course, upper Middle class folks are going to be at the high end of the spectrum of your results for salary income. Even if it includes all income, not accounting for wealth and how that affects the lives of people is going to introduce error into your viewpoint.

this is what I wrote previously

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251861822

And the food, and reasonable transport during the nighttime. New York is affordable only once you've learned how to live there, even at 400k.

In a major city, $250k is middle class.

Putnam County NY ranks #7 but the top two are in Virginia and #3 is in Maryland. Loudon County VA has media of 117,800. Manhattan County NY $66,700.

250K is very affluent, not middle class. 70K is not 'rich' but a bit above average, in Manhattan it's 3K above average.

By world standards our median income is rich. There is a lot of poverty and misery in this world, and most people in this world dream of becoming what we call Middle Class even if we defined that as about our median household income. Immigrants do come to the U.S. seeking a better life for their children.

But like the concept "middle class" the concept of "rich" is ill defined also. People literally do call people like Bill Gates, with multiple Billions, "Rich". I prefer to call people with incomes that rise well above our median, but well below a quarter million, affluent.

The meaningful standard by which to judge American middle class incomes would be against those earned in other advanced industrial nations. One thing to consider is that in many of those nations a lot of the things that people here in the States often have to pay for out of pocket, such as medical insurance and treatment and higher education costs, are provided by the state instead as a right of citizenship.

I think a $70,000 a year household income here doesn't make anyone "fairly rich", but I might say it makes them "fairly well off" in the overall picture. Having said all that to me it is absurd to argue that those in the top 3 to 5% of income earners are "middle class" which is what calling a quarter million middle class asserts.

all subjective terms. And as such there are no clear dividing lines. Your opinion is as good as anyone else's.

Is $250K gross income per year rich? I don't know. Maybe, but it is comfortable anywhere in the US.

Is $1M per year rich? Damn right it is by anyone's definition.

Is $50K per year poor? Not in most of the US.

Is $15K per year poor? In the US, yes it is. In Haiti or any other third world country, the definitions are much different than North America, Western Europe, South Korea and Japan.

It's subjective.

I'll also get down on my knees and thank God.

I mean, how else could I win without purchasing a ticket?

one of those winning tickets.

Hell, it's more than what my wife and I together will make.

She's closer to retirement than me.

But I'm ready right now...

$250,000 a year to be a middle class income should reevaluate their lifestyle.

The US Census Bureau has data on this, and it's easy enough to add an extra column to their spread sheet, and calculate the faction of households with incomes in various categories, as I did below. As you can see, the $250k line does not even delineate the One Percenters, so a family may make $250k and still not be among the uber wealthy. It's interesting to note the 16 percent bulge in the $100k to $150k category. That's a pretty big lump. I would say that's about where upper limits of the middle class would be.

..$100,000 to $149,999 16.57286186
..$150,000 to $199,999 7.300868714
..$200,000 to $249,999 3.345160896
..$250,000 and above 4.011990701

Keep in mind, the term "middle class" means "doing pretty well," and includes a broad range of households, from those that are living from one paycheck to another, ll the way up to those that are driving Beamers and vacationing in Hawaii.

Are you saying it goes straight from "Middle Class" to "The 1%"?

There is a huge spread in this category. Anybody who makes more than $250k is in the top four percent, but they're in the same group with those who make millions, even billions. If you make $250k, you probably belong to a nice country club, but you're not on the board of directors.

The country club membership may have to go. But one is rich at that point.

However, I think this debate is distracting in that the core issue is far more complex than we are led to believe. Arguing over distinctions between classes is counter-productive, though it is clearly a problem that must be addressed.

Set aside 13 minutes, grab a cup of whatever you drink and watch this video. It's worth your time. In fact, have your kids watch it too - teenagers included.

https://vimeo.com/6686131

At the six minute, thirty mark, it starts to make sense in relation to this thread. At the ten minute mark it gets ... interesting.

I strongly recommend watching it from the start so it all comes together. It's complex and layered but explained in excellent terms that are easy to understand.

But I also wouldn't call $70k rich (obviously from an American perspective not a global one). My take is that the range of middle class would be about $34,000 - $92,000. Even this is a very broad range. A person making $34,000 is leading a very different lifestyle from someone making $92,000, but I think the middle class has always been broadly defined and it really does make a difference where you live.

If you make less than $34,000 then you would be in the lower 33% of households and I think you would qualify as poor. If you make over $92k then you are in the top 25% and I think you are very well-off. At about $150k you are in the top 10% and you are rich. $250k/year puts you in the top 3% - if you make that much money you are very wealthy.

I think it's fine to use $250,000 as a cutoff when talking about raising taxes but I don't think someone making that much is "middle class".

Thanks for the thread, Recursion.

Use or exclusion of the word 'household' is what makes all the difference in the world of tax discussions.

It used to mean educated professionals and it's meaning expanded over time because nobody wants to admit to being "working class".

and people keep arguing with math.

The middle class is the economic backbone of the U.S. It is made up of successful small business owners, the educated professional classes (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc), people who have achieved management level in their companies, etc. The lower middle class is generally made up of less successful business owners, skilled tradespeople working for themselves, etc.

Economically, it is best defined as: People who make enough money to pay their bills AND have enough discretionary income left over after paying their bills to maintain a comfortable standard of living, to purchase items not needed for daily survival (vacation homes, boats, etc) and/or to save money to maintain their economic security. The primary difference between the middle class and the rich is their dependence on income and their relative lack of wealth. A doctor who can no longer practice medicine quickly falls into the ranks of the poor because he or she lacks the accrued wealth to maintain his or her standard of living without ongoing income. Unlike the rich, the middle class must continue working to maintain their economic status.

Historically, the middle class was referred to as the "Merchant class" or the Bourgeoisie.

The working class is made up of the people below the middle class, who work regularly and may or may not make enough to pay their bills. While some working class jobs do require considerable education, they are still considered working class because their income isn't large enough to permit discretionary spending beyond what is needed for survival. These are the people who make enough to put food on the table and pay their rent, but they probably don't have more than a few hundred bucks in the bank, they aren't buying new cars regularly, and they certainly don't have vacation homes. They're living paycheck to paycheck.

The "rich" don't need to work. They are the ownership class that is capable of surviving purely off of accrued wealth. While many rich people do work, they do so by choice and not by necessity.

There does tend to be quite a bit of overlap between the terms, and the specific numbers vary based on your location in the country. A person can make $45,000 a year in Mississippi may qualify as either lower middle class or upper working class, depending on their particular economic circumstances and whether that income is sufficient to provide them with economic security. Someone making $150,000 a year in the SF Bay Area, on the other hand is certainly in the upper middle class income range, but they are probably not "rich" because the cost of living in that area is high enough to prohibit someone making that kind of money from accruing enough wealth to make working "optional". They'll live well, but they'll still be forced to work until they reach retirement age. On the other hand, someone making $150,000 a year in Podunk Oklahoma actually MAY be wealthy, because that income will be more than sufficient for them to establish enough investments to "retire early". Their income, relative to the local cost of living, is high enough to generate wealth that isn't dependent on additional income.