MSNBC's Brewer keeps asking if $250 thou a year for a family is 'wealthy'

Deval Patrick replies, "If you make $30 thou a year, $250 thou looks wealthy."

I was just thinking the same thing as I totaled my meager income from last year in my head.

No need to equivocate at all.

And would be considered 'wealthy' by 90% plus of Americans. What is she trying to prove? Does she think 20,000 is poor? Does she think 50,000 is poor? Or 100,000?

top 5%. It's not poor, but it's not wealthy like those who inherit & live off their interest.

Anyway, I think being in the top 5% makes you pretty tanj rich even if there are a few people even richer.

It helps enormously and I was able to retire at age 67, but my "secret" is that hubby is still employed and we live modestly. Not everyone who inherits is that wealthy.

have to work. That is very different from someone who gets a modest inheritance. The farms are gone now in my family, but for a long time everyone inherited. The catch was that everyone also got married right after high school and didn't inherit until they were in their 60's! They would keep the money in the bank for medical etc... and pass it along to the next generation. But it was never millions of dollars.

Last time I checked, something like 90% of all stocks are owned by the top 20%. Most people make under $50K.

$200K doesn't sound like riches, but in comparison to the vast majority of people in this country it's a huge amount.

and you really get a sense of how astronomically wealthy $250K a year is.

That Brewer has no clue should be a little alarming.

be 'wealthy'.
http://www.slate.com/id/2198806/pagenum/all/
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/hhinc/new06_000.htm

It does depend upon where you live, and what kind of student loans you're paying back. I don't think anyone could argue someone is "poor" with that income, but income is different than wealth (you can be fired at any time and lose that income).

She can call it a "consultant's fee."

Stop with this subjectivity shit.

I make a good bit more than $30K, and I think I could live VERY comfortably on $250K.

No trust fund babies coming from 250K. Plenty of luxury spending though. I'd like that money too but real wealth...well you just gotta see them to believe it.

And perspective is surely a factor... Agreed- it's not likely that someone would generate an untold fortune from a $250K annual income. But I'd say that if you're well off enough to do that kind of luxury spending, you meet the requirements of "wealthy."

Likewise, someone earning $20K might see ME as wealthy...

True "wealth" versus the common language use of the word are two different things. Common language lets us be relative about it...as the 20K to you.

The actual financial definition of "wealthy" really does means the creme de la creme trust funders and board of directors types that get into the position because of the family's money. Vanderbilts (face it, does Anderson really NEED to work?), Bushes, Merkes, Kennedys, and Rockefellers...all true wealth.

You really have to see them to believe them. I never thought real people live like they do until I actually met a few.

Take Chris Rock's definition: Shaq not "wealthy". Shaq is "rich". The guy who signs Shaq's checks is "wealthy".

it's kind of a pissing contest, really. Sure, you have the UBER-wealthy (the Vanderbilts, etc....). But the average family of, say, four with an income of $250K- let's face it: unless they are irresponsible with their money, they are not going into the hole a little every year (whereas a similar family earning less than half of that very well might be). They HAVE the money to send their kids to college (as pointed out downthread), as opposed to scrimping and borrowing in order to do it.

No, they're not (unless they're stupid) going out and buying Ferrari's on a whim, but to most of the US's wage earners, they are "wealthy."

I concede your true definition argument- don't get me wrong. From a practical and real-world standpoint, though- I think telling your average blue-collar worker that $250K per year is NOT wealthy is certain to generate some ire.

About pissing of the working man, they need to have things explained that the 250K guy isn't the top of the food chain. Nobody really seems to be trying to explain things to folks about the difference between the two levels of income. When I was with them one just got the idea that anyone above 100K was rich and could all be lumped together.

Now I'm nearing that 100K mark and I most certainly am not "rich". If my car goes down, I'm in deep shit. Just like some of them.

Still think they have 'plenty of luxury spending'?

Depends on other situations...have to case-by-case it. Still not "wealthy" though.

The other 100K or so going to taxes.

If they have other deductables it might not be 100K.

They are still not wealthy and their kids may have to take a student loan or two if things get too dicey.

Of course that would segway into my belief that higher education should be more affordable if not free and into loans not being as easy to get as they used to be...but that is another topic.

and a lot of these people get hit with AMT as well. The housing costs in major metro areas are a big factor in why 250K is not wealthy, so yes they will get to deduct the 20-30,000 a year they are paying in interest, getting back 28% of that, which would add a massive 10K or so to the 50K they have to spend, while their housing costs would also have to amount to 50% or so of that now generous 60K to get that 10K.

It just isn't rich. It isn't even wealthy. If you don't have a substantial portion of your income coming from your investments, if you are out there working for a living, if you don't have assets that make your job essentially an option for you, you are not rich, you are not wealthy, you are just another working stiff, another peasant like the rest of us.

The market spiraling out of control over the past 8 years could mean a massive mortgage versus a comparitively minute one if they bought before that crazy boom.

One more factor in the case-by-case.

Totally agree about the making the various peasants attack each other.

Give me a break. Even Bill Gates and Oprah are still working. Maybe they aren't wealthy either.

Look, if you make more money that 95% of the rest of the country, then you simply are wealthy. What about housing costs and AMTs and college tuition? Those same costs are being paid by families making $70,000 or $110,000 or $160,000 and they look up and say "Holy crap it would be nice to make $250,000. That would totally kick a$$!!"

And when it comes to shares of the pie, they are getting a big slice. In 2001, the top 5% (the bottom of that group made $150,499) got 22.4% of all income. The next 15% got 27.7%. Those were households making $83,500 - $150,499. That group has also been increasing their share over the last 30 years while the bottom 40% loses.

In 2000, 15 years after I had graduated college, my lifetime earnings were $109,954. So there is no way I will ever believe that a family making more than twice that in a year is "just another working stiff".

And Bill isn't working anymore, he quit. That is the difference. The wealthy choose to work, the rest of us have to.

and save enough money to be set for life. Not set for the high-life, but set for the same life I am living right now, which is not that bad. Doubtless I would need a little/lot more if I had kids, but $375,000 is more $100,000 more than my lifetime earnings for the last 23 years, so I think it would cover me for the next 25.

How the heck are you going to save 375,000 in 18 months on a 250,000 salary? You would be doing quite well if you managed to safe 15% of your pre-tax income. I sure hope your $55,250 retirement account is going to last. At 25 years that would be 2,250/yr, or around 200/month. Good luck.

I realize that if you are making 12,000 a year, which is your claim, that 250,000 must mean 'rich person' to you. I understand that, but that is the game they are playing.

If after 23 years you are still being paid $5.75/hr, might I suggest a different line of work?

The rich don't have to work, most of them never did. Their children will never have to work. They have only the insecurity of mortality and the dread that we will stop fighting each other, wake the fuck up, and demand that we too should live without the fear and anxiety of worrying that we will not be able to keep our house, or pay for the car repairs, or put our kids through school.

$250,000 after taxes is about $163,769. I just calculated FICA, state taxes and federal taxes (without very many deductions) Suppose I splurge and live on $25,000. Not a hardship, since I am living on less than $12,000 now. That means I saved $138,000 in the first year (not including the $3000 in interest I would make that year). Or $208,000 after 1.5 years. Figure that 4% interest on that is $8,300 a year. Looking at my paycheck for a 40 hour payperiod, my take-home pay is $8,164 a year.

Anyway, rich is not about working vs. not working. It is about having more and living larger than most of the rest of us, and $250,000 definitely qualifies.

I think that's how most of them got rich in the first place. By working.

The number of rich people who got rich strictly through inheritance is probably very, very small.

and your NET income is $250K, your taxes for 2008 are about $70K (according to this tax table: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ar02.html#en_US_publink1000113133 and this one: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/10311g87.html). So, if you have a gross income of $250K and 2 kids, there is no way in hell your taxes are $100K.

Not just federal income tax. Oh and of course there are property taxes, which I did not include and which are substantial again in these areas.

if people choose to live in a luxury house/area, they can expect to pay luxurious property taxes.

There are a few Federal taxes to pay, don't forget. If you make $250K, you take home ±$160K if
you have no significant deductions (I don't).

NOW deduct $100K for those two kids in college (we had 2 and I refuse to beg for financial aid
as long as there are kids who need loans to get an education), and you have $60K left over.
Now deduct again about half for the fact that I have all my bills payable in euros (kids are
in college in the USA), and get no cost of living allowance. Yes, we can still live on it, but
don't talk to me about "wealth." We're not starving, but Bill Gates has nothing to fear from us
sneaking up on his ranking on the Forbes top 100 list.

But according to some here you are. I dissagree with them.

I mean, OK, I salute people who manage to get by on $25K a year or less,
but just because I lucked out to the point where I am not hand-to-mouth
does not mean I live in the lap of luxury by any stretch of the imagination.

Is fucking wealthy. Jesus. The lack of perspective is MIND BOGGLING. You really don't know how the other half (lower 4/5th) lives, do you? As an adjunct professor I made HALF of what it costs to send ONE of your little preciouses off to a private money hole.

your kid would qualify for a full financial aide package at the same school my kid would have to pay full fare to attend. But as an adjunct professor, you know that. I'm sorry you are paid so poorly. All of us should be well compensated, none of us should have to fear that we will not be able to keep our house, or repair our car, or put our kids through school.

The vast majority of students from lower income families won't ever get into a private school with the ability to shell out aid packages. In fact, regardless of your blatantly disingenuous attempt to spin aid packages, they are STILL merit based in reality because only a few select students would get accepted in the FIRST PLACE. These students have the deck stacked against them even more, considering that their parents can't afford to pad up the endowments and grease the wheels for their kids, nor can they send them to tutor in Honduras for a summer to pad up their extra curriculars.

The only way your example would work is if these aid packages were available to all needy students. They just AREN'T. Pell grants pay out an average of $2,000 a year and top out at $3,000. At this point, need based aid must be cobbled together from increasingly shrinking pools from the states and the universities themselves. The affordability of college then becomes a lottery of where one was born, since the vast majority of states give tuition breaks for in-state students but the availability of state aid is variable from state to state. South Dakota has NO state aid, for instance. As for institutional allocations, only half is used for need-based aid.

The reality of the situation that is unless one's parents are dirt-poor with little taxable income, and can qualify for maximum aid packages, is lucky enough to live in a state that provides them, is lucky enough to be able to attend a school that can offer them, and is lucky enough to have ACCESS to the information needed to apply for them, most students are going to need to take out at LEAST a sizeable chunk in loans.

In my situation, tuition for dependents based on my employment was based on credits for hours taught. The administration had a clever little calculus figured out to insure that most adjuncts couldn't accrue enough credits to qualify. There are stipulations that require one to teach for a certain period of time; my university required 4 semesters NOT including summer semesters before the credits for ONE covered course kick in, and after that nothing until 12 consecutive, non-summer semesters, to a maximum of 2 covered courses per semester. Period. Very rarely do we even make it that long; adjuncts can be dismissed for any reason the administration wants to give.

In reality, I couldn't afford to have kids on what I made as an adjunct so the whole debate is moot.

And it seems you don't know much about the financial aid system at most of the top private universities. They will admit you without consideration of your financial status. They will put together a need based package that will guarantee that your family can afford to attend.

Many of these universities operate as this simple explanation from the University of Chicago outlines:

At the University of Chicago, the Admissions Committee evaluates admissions applications without regard to financial need. The Committee on College Aid determines financial aid based on demonstrated financial need only, this means that we calculate your family's ability to pay based on income and assets. Our office does not award merit or athletic scholarships. The Office of College Aid strives to meet 100 percent of demonstrated need throughout your undergraduate career. Unless your family circumstances change, your financial aid award will remain relatively similar from one year to the next.

Harvard is even more detailed:

Guiding Principles of Admissions and Financial Aid at Harvard College:

Lack of financial resources or need for financial aid are not impediments to admission.

All financial aid awarded by Harvard is need-based, and grant eligibility is determined in the same manner for all admitted students.

Harvard meets the full need of all students applying for financial aid for all four years, based on information that we receive from the family for each year.

Who receives financial aid at Harvard?

Over half of all undergraduates receive need-based Harvard Scholarship aid, totaling over $130 million.

One fifth of families qualify for the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative, where parents with total incomes less than $60,000 are expected to pay nothing.

Parents with total incomes between $60,000 and $180,000, and typical assets, are now asked to pay an average of up to 10% of their income.

Foreign students have the same access to financial aid funding as U.S. citizens, including the Initiative outlined above.

Two thirds of students work during the academic year.
What are the income levels of families receiving Harvard Scholarship assistance

**There are several hundred families making more than $200,000 who are receiving scholarship aid.


Many top rank private universities follow very similar practices. This is one of the reasons why upper income families pay the entire 50k+ - they are subsidizing less well off families.

Save the snark about my "lack of knowledge" in how "top schools" allocate aid; I'm well aware of how it works. I am talking about aid at ALL universities; I expanded it from "top schools" because as you also noticed, only a tiny fraction of students will actually attend those, regardless of income.

You're trying to make it seem as if there is some golden heaven in the "top" schools for poor or middle class families. That's a convenient "American Dream" myth which keeps kids aspiring to attend over-priced institutions with inflated reputations. Unfortunately, it has no bearing on the reality for the vast majority of families.

Remember the main point, which was arguing "wealth"; just because a tiny fraction of poor kids might get full rides to an Ivy DOESN'T mean the parents who pay full cost out of pocket are not wealthy. Talk about deflection.

There seems to be this ridiculous mentality that one can claim "That's isn't so much money after I spend over half of it on living well" and still be taken seriously. :wtf:

Mind-boggling. A luxury for me is buying a decent bottle of vodka these days.

. . . to the ability of the majority of Americans in maintaining children in college.

The issue Brewer was raising was the repeal of some of the tax advantages that income group has been receiving. In that equation, certainly that $250,000 income group is much more able to shoulder that tightening than the vast majority (80-90%) of wage earners making around $30,000.

If you want to go after wealth then treat capital gains as ordinary income.

50K each per year for college IS luxury spending. Even the most expensive public school (Penn State) ranges from 10K - 25K/year tuition.

25K in certain cities might be a feasable tag on to 25K for tuition.

And not much less than that for the rest of the pack. State universities are not exactly cheap anymore either, and nobody in the 250K/yr range is getting any reduction on those payments.

especially if the kids don't get a big chunk of scholarship money.

You seem to be another one who doesn't understand the system. If you get admitted to Harvard and your family income is 50k/yr Harvard will put together a financial aid package for you that covers your expenses. You will get that scholarship. They will make sure that your 50k/yr family can afford to send you to Harvard.

but yes- going to harvard is definitely a luxury. if harvard wants to make it easier for the under 50k set to attend- that's their business and their concern.

averages

private four-year $25,143
public four-year $6,585
Public two-year $2,402

My alma mater is now $40k a year, including room and board. Still, a public university would be very easily affordable for someone making that amount of money.

and 50k/year for college is a BIG part of that "luxury spending".

Yes, a family making $250,000 trying to send two kids to college that costs $50,000/year may not have a lot left over for "luxury" spending.

It would seem to me that $50,000 per year tuition could itself be considered a luxury when the resident tuition at many state schools is 1/10th that. I do think a good college education is practically a necessity in today's world, but it doesn't have to be an expensive private school. It's just like some one living in the suburbs may need a car, but it doesn't have to be a Lexus or Lincoln - and for many people it doesn't have to be a big SUV either. It be a nice compact or mid-size vehicle by Toyota or Ford.

If you think I'm being heartless, consider a family trying to send two kids to a $50,000/year college on $75,000 per year.

from these same universities. They basically guarantee that if they admit you, you can attend. The point I am trying to make here is not that 250k a year is not better off than 50k a year, of course it is. The point is that the better off peasants are still just working stiffs trying to make ends meet and that we are deliberately being pitted against each other in this tax policy debate while brazenly obvious gifts to the fabulously wealthy, such as reductions in capital gains taxes and estate taxes go unchallenged.

And those kids don't have to go to schools that demand $50,000 a year to attend.. Yes a quarter of a million dollars a year is wealthy...even for an American but try asking someone from Sudan or Syria or Mexico orvirtually every other country in the world.

You don't pay nearly that much at a state university.

So this is a luxury only affordable to the less well off? Odd luxury, that.

People who make $250,000 have to pay full price. Boo fucking hoo :nopity:

And they don't have to even WORK for it! :sarcasm:

and my nice car (I lease, don't want to deal with repairs later on), and sending my kids to the best schools they could get into, and of course the good food to keep me healthy unlike those burger munching slobs, I'm lucky if I net $30,000 in savings by the end of the year. There are single people earning $60K who put that kind of money away each year. I'm practically going broke!

saving 12% of your income after ALL EXPENSES...EVERY YEAR...no, you're just barely getting by! :cry:

Of course, they are conveniently forgetting the 3-5% or so interest on those savings, but it's really not WEALTHY DAMMIT!

I'm fine with paying full fare, but don't tell me I'm wealthy just because of my salary. As I said, a family with 250K a year in income with two kids in college at full tuition does not have a lot of disposable income. If you have no choice about working, you are not wealthy.

:nopity:

You're rich. You might spend a lot of it and wind up with very little to show (or quite a bit really considering education is of value) for it, but just because you spend a lot does not change the fact that you're rich.

Welcome to rich. There are billions of people around the world who live on far less than your income.

If you want to know what rich is consider googling the L curve. All this thread is about is the lower peasants bashing the upper peasants. It is a great game if you are actually not a peasant.

You rich spoiled bastard.

Putting two kids through private colleges so that they aren't burdened by massive debt is "luxury spending".

I'm 32 and still paying off student loans from a state school. And I worked 15-20 hours a week all through college. I had to drop out of grad school because I couldn't afford it (or rather, couldn't do the work and all the other work I had to do to keep myself afloat).

Having parents with the means to just pay for my schooling and let me focus on studying and not have to worry about grabbing the first job that came along out of school because how the hell was I going to pay off $30,000 in debt (still working on in 10 years later btw) sounds pretty damn luxurious to me.

There is a difference between rich and wealthy. A huge fucking difference.

Rich has money to fall back on but things change in a generation or two.

Wealthy is and always will be wealthy.

Difference between having a vacation home in Daytona, Florida or the Hamptons. A 20 foot boat or a gigantic yacht.

I know too many lawyers & doctors making that income, but also paying off thousands in student loans. You certainly live comfortably, probably like the typical middle-class family did 50 years ago. But it's not wealthy like the George Bush's of the world - who can live off their interest if they choose and don't need to work.

Actually the husband who married into it is my friend. The wife (wealthy) doesn't actually care if I exist. Maybe it's her personally, but I get the distinctive feeling that we (my wife and I) are insignificant to her.

The things she talks about doing...would blow your mind at the money.

have decent salaries (say anywhere from 50K - 250K) but the amount of debt, whether they pay student loans, whether they've managed to save any of it, can play big factors in how they live.

If they have to get up & go to work for that paycheck they're not wealthy. They might have an easier day-to-day existence but it's not the same as living off your interest.

The truly wealthy, who don't need to work, are in an entirely different universe.

When you really don't HAVE to work.

See the documentary "Born Rich" by one of the Johnsons (of the Johnson and Johnson fortune). The woman I mentioned above was in part of it (at the exclusive nightclub in the documentary for a moment and not an interview).

Even in America a quarter million dollars a year is Wealthy but if you use a world viewpoint it is not even a bone of contention.

250K/yr for a family living in one of the major metropolitan regions makes them 'well off' or 'upper middle class', but not 'wealthy'.

that's only the case if they feel that they should be living the lifestyle of a much larger income.
people with a $250K income don't HAVE to have a HUGH house or multiple $30K cars in the driveway...every metro area in the country also has reasonably priced housing available.

Probably, you're caught in a situation where you're trying to "keep up with the Joneses" where you confuse wants vs. needs. In such situations, you're basically competing with people who make several million each year vs. your paltry 250K income.

But to answer the question, I would say $250,000/year is considered wealthy. Well, if we want to split hairs, I'd say it is "affluent." The truly "wealthy," the elite among the top 1% of income earners make anywhere between $10,000,000 to $100,000,000/year. Some will make even more than that.

. . . tough on her.

And it appears that the merely rich want to be sure they're not included with the wealthy. I think it was Chris Rock who noted that Magic Johnson is rich, but the guy who signs his paychecks is wealthy.

The question, however, is designed to divert us from the real issues. I also note that the person asking the question is probably in that $250,000 per annum income class, and would desperately like to be included on the side with more people.

$250K in my neck of the woods would be considered rich, in a major metro area maybe not so but still not poor. That could be a two income household. But think of rent and cost of living for say San Fran or NYC.

Paid off FICA early a month or so early. Had to work 12 hours a day and seven days a week most of the year to do it. Almost forgot. Had to work most holidays too.

Never got close to that again.

Don

$250K in annual earnings is high cash flow relative to other workers. However, the person who earns it may not have a high net worth. Lots of reasons for that not all of which are the consequence of excess consumption.

The opposite is also true. I know a millionaire who has never earned more than $30k in annual wages. He works doing something he enjoys and lives a frugal lifestyle. And is trying to teach his children the same skills.

Then there is the question of what it really means to be wealthy. It seems the measning is realtive depending on one's own perspective. To me being wealthy means that someone has enough resources to provide for themselves and their immediate family indefinitely. I think that requires both a net worth of several million dollars and the ability to generate high cash flow if required. How do I come to that conclusion? Because I know someone who was severly injured in an accident which was not their fault. All available insurance funds were quckly exhausted and they were left with the responsibility to fund the care they required. The bill for the first six weeks in a level one trauma center exceeded one million dollars. This particular individual spent most of a year in various health care facilities before finally being released to the care of a family member.

If you have kids in college aren't they also talking about letting you write that off? I thought that was part of Obama's plan. Tax credits for tuition was supposed to be part of the new tax deal.

yes, Contessa - $250.000 is a lotta dough.

is the "small business owner" gambit. Because our tax system is so byzantine, small business owners get lumped in with this statement. While they seldom get "real" personal income anywhere near $250k, their business will often gross that.

So every time Dems start talking about raising taxes, the Repubs drag out this canard. In fact, raising marginal tax rates to more reasonable levels will actually encourage reinvestment, and discourage hoarding of assets in unproductive tax shelters.

The fact is, we will need to raise taxes soon, if for no other reason than the stimulus package has the danger of triggering rampant inflation if we aren't careful. The only people who really have any income to tax are those in the upper income brackets. As the bank robber said when they asked why he robbed banks, "That's where the money is."

:shrug:

well I won't chance my membership with that one but you get my drift

Paris Hilton could make zero dollars and still be wealthy. Bill Gates had an income of minus billions of dollars last year. He still counts as wealthy.

Someone making 250,000 is surely well off and affluent, but they could also have huge amounts of debt.

Sure, there are places where $250K is "just scrapin' by" :nopity:, but it's not 99.9999999% of the Planet Earth.

. . . if that's a family of four.

I could do with that though.

NYC, the DC area, LA, Silicon Valley - are extremely expensive compared to the rest of the country. $250k gross is
NOT wealthy. $250k net, even after tax, is an excellent salary, but not wealthy in these areas.

"Wealthy" should refer to those who are so well off they're living off of capital alone or getting paid millions a
year.

The 39% tax rate is perfectly reasonable. We had much much higher taxes in the upper incomes in the 50's and did
quit well.

In Northern California, where a typical home in the Bay Area can be $750,000, that is a pretty middle class income.

Here in Omaha, I'd have a 5 bedroom McMansion, and I'd get to host keggers for the Nebraska Democratic Party meetups.

I could own a McMansion on the water, my own little cove, a boat & mooring. I'd be set. :hi:

It is enough however, if you can sustain it, to put you on the road to being wealthy over the course of your life.

The goverment figures showing what incomes are considered lower,middle and upper class have not been changed to reflect reality and the effects of inflation in decades.
Anyone who trots out arguments based on those figures is lying with statistics.

which is more than some people make in a year. I'd say that is doing pretty well.

Someone earning $250K might have a plethora of expenses that leave little discretionary income, ie. parent in a nursing home, medical expenses, child in college.

Wealth is accumulated. Salary is fleeting.

bubble. Contessa should stick to putting on lipstick live on TV or pretending she can cover hurricanes. Every time she opens her mouth I shake my head - she is the quintessence of dumb.

What idiots.

Hekate

where i live, that's a lot of money. if i lived in NYC... i don't know. it costs more to live there, doesn't it? and there are places where it costs a lot just to live. I live in wny, and to my less than $40k a year, that is a lot. I could pay off all my bills in one year with that paycheck!!! and have money left over.

..at my current salary. I don't know about wealthy, but it sounds pretty sweet to me.

And the longer this recession continues, the more wealthy a $250K income will appear to those who are making less or nothing at all.

Over a million dollars every four years!

or "petite wealthy". True "wealth" in this country is now a far bigger number. That being said, it would be quite an improvement on my financial condition.

Wealth is old school, blueblood money. People that will never be in danger of being poor no matter what happens. Bill Gates is wealthy, the Bush and Kennedy families are wealthy, oil sheiks are wealthy. Rock, sports and movie stars are rich, bank executives are rich. 250k is working but comfortable or at least it should be. Where I live 100k is middle class.

Of course $250,000 a year is wealthy, here in Peoria $100,000 a year is wealthy. Then again, if you live in New York $250,000 a year is probably middle class. Someone tell Contessa $250,000 a year is a lot of money, and it's wealthy in most cities in America, but not all.

It depends on what city you live in, and the cost of living there, if I made $250,000 here it would be equal to $500,000 in New York. People who state a dollar amount made per year, and then ask if that is wealthy, are morons.

For most of us it is. That's doctor money in Fayetteville--a handful of doctors, some realtors and a few lawyers make that much money.

There are places in probably every state in the US where $250,000 will barely pay your bills.

To me, "wealthy" means that once you pay your bills and buy your necessities, you have more than half of your paycheck left.

And at the rate we're going, $250k per annum will be a princely sum... even more so.

to distinguish between wealth and income (= a gross measure of the rate of wealth accumulation).

Even if you spend to keep a certain profile lifestyle, such as private schools and an expensive home. You will likely have investments that yield well for you, too.

Look, this whole argument about accumulating is offset by the fact that people feel they have to spend a certain amount maintaining a lifestyle; someone making $250,000 could easily put away at least $100,000 yearly AND earn a really nice little interest on that if they chose not to live extravagantly. How do I know that? Because plenty of families live on $50,000.

Yes, they're not the super elite; they have the "difficult" choice between growing their wealth quickly and living like an average middle class American or they can maintain a high-status lifestyle and accumulate their wealth more slowly. Where you live is somewhat irrelevant; if you work in Manhattan, take the subway like the other slobs and live in Queens. Don't cry that you have to live in a $5mil loft. :eyes:

The difference between wealthy or not when someone makes $250,000 a year is not that the fact that they "only" make $250,000 a year, it's if they decide to spend like kings or grow their wealth. :eyes:

NT!

but then I crossed the 100k barrier and it's not everything you dreamed of it being. I think anything under 7 figures isn't being RICH and anything under 8 figures isn't WEALTHY.

That's just me being me tho.

Sheesh. My sister went to college in Buffalo. She and her friends paid about $600/month to rent an entire (nice) HOUSE. The median household income there is $26K and you're telling me "anything under 7 figures isn't being RICH and anything under 8 figures isn't WEALTHY."??!!

:nuke:

I could live anywhere I wanted to live. I could vacation anyplace I wanted in the world. I could drive any car I wanted to drive. I could eat whatever I desired. I could help all my family and friends that need help. Yes, I would consider myself rich.

It's rich, and the fact that even on DU people can't agree about that is a fucking disgrace.

There are people who don't even get that and they are suffering.