What do you consider "rich"?

[Brandwin]

I live in Texas and I wouldn't consider a family house hold of 100k being rich at all.
Might not have to struggle as much as some (depending on how you spend your money), but rich? Nah...

[KG]

Quote: Originally Posted by Brandon13

Depends on location. $1 million in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, is a lot more relatively speaking than $1 million in New York City.

Right, it's about location and saving.

Simply put, you can make 100K a year in DC but live in a part of town or the burbs that will eat most of that salary meaning that you won't pocket nearly as much.

To me, you cannot put a monetary value on being "rich".

[matt8204]

Quote: Originally Posted by cjonesfan921

Alright, we each probably have different opinions on what's rich. It doesn't have a clear definition. To me, it's when you don't have to worry about any "normal" bills. Obviously some people are extremely materialistic and rich for them is different. My question is, an average family household, what would you consider to be rich, as far as income? I ask this because got into a debate with friends at school. I say 100K a year is rich. They claim, not even close. I think that's absurd. They said something along the lines of 250K. I looked at statistics, and only 20% of households make over 97K a year. Also, only 7% of people make over 97K a year. Just interested in hearing other opinions.

I think a lot of it depends on where you live also. $50,000 per year goes a lot further in a state like Minnesota or Iowa than it does in New York or New Jersey. Cheaper property taxes, less expensive auto insurance, more affordable homes (relatively speaking), etc.

It also depends on how you spend and save your money. If you make $150k per year and spend every dime you have, you're not going to feel very wealthy. I have heard about lawyers who have a Benz or Beemer (or both, lol) and can't afford to put gas in the tank. Conversely, you could make $50 or $60k, be wise with your money, have a nice chunk of change in the bank and feel much more secure about your financial situation. It all depends on your goals and your individual wants and needs.

[fistofrage]

My definition of Being rich is being able to do what you want when you want. By that definition you would have sources of income that would allow you to not actively be employed or under the employ of others. And for that you must be mega wealthy.

Now others may very. Growing up in a small farming community and now having a 3000 sq foot house and a decent white collar job, my friends all would say I am rich.

Its all relative, talk to the person in a double wide and get his definition of rich vs. the investment banker. Rich may be going out to Red Lobster once a week vs. traveling the world 1st class.

[Stumbleweed]

If you're a single-earner making over 100K per year, I consider you rich. Whenever you're quadrupling the incomes of the individual median, then you're rich. The median income for an individual over 18 in the US in 2005 was $25,149...

[fistofrage]

Quote: Originally Posted by Stumbleweed

If you're a single-earner making over 100K per year, I consider you rich. Whenever you're quadrupling the incomes of the individual median, then you're rich. The median income for an individual over 18 in the US in 2005 was $25,149...

Its all relative. The thing I find interesting is that the person making $25K most likely has a cell phone, cable and roughly the same diet as the person making $100K per year. The main difference between the 2 is going to be difference in housing and possibly vehicle in most cases, quite a few of the other components are relatively similar.

If you live in small town USA, $25K per year can live relatively decent. In fact probably has more amenities and room in their house than the person in a major metropolitan area making $100K.

[Stumbleweed]

Yeah, geography certainly makes a difference... $100K in San Francisco will get you about the same standard of living as $50K in Denver. Putting those ridiculously inflated markets aside, I still think 100K per year as an individual is a pretty good cutoff point... a very small percentage of people make more than that in a year.

[fistofrage]

Quote: Originally Posted by Stumbleweed

Yeah, geography certainly makes a difference... $100K in San Francisco will get you about the same standard of living as $50K in Denver. Putting those ridiculously inflated markets aside, I still think 100K per year as an individual is a pretty good cutoff point... a very small percentage of people make more than that in a year.

Yeah, the 100K jobs are relatively scarce. But if you grew up in a small town like I did, the people who were making what you might consider low wages were actually living fairly decent.

In fact, there were probably less than 10 people in my town of 20,000 that were making $100k(I'm speaking in relative terms to today's market), and that would have been a few doctors and the owner of a manufatcuring plant and possibly a Lawyer or two. Most people earned relatively close to that $25,000 but both parents worked.

What we considered middle class in that town were families(both working) that made between $35 and $50K.

But yeah I agree with you, those people that made $100K, we considered rich even though in the grand scheme there wasn't a huge gap in what they had, it was just a little nicer than ours. Now I have a slightly different view on what rich is.