DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: kirksnosehair on December 09, 2011, 11:13:47 AM
-
I'm just curious what the membership here considers to be "rich." Obviously, "rich" is a relative term. I saw this article (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/08/rich-median-income-150000_n_1137709.html)today that cited a poll wherein most Americans say that a household income of $150k per year makes one "rich" and my reaction to that was a combination of :eek and :lol because I personally think you have to be pulling in enough money that you are 100% financially independent in order to be classified as "rich" but maybe you feel differently.
I'm genuinely interested in what you think, especially since it seems that a lot of you are young, and therefor unlikely to have yet achieved an income level that would be classified by anyone as "rich" (although I am sure plenty of you will be very successful!)
-
I'd look at more in terms of accumulated wealth rather than yearly income. Plenty of people making $100k a year or more blow it all on a too big house, fancy cars and dining out all the time. There are plenty of people making that much money living paycheck to paycheck to maintain their lifestyle. These people are not rich.
On the other hand, there's the retired couple who have lived in the same reasonably sized house for 40 years, don't drive flashy cars, are generally frugal people who never had huge incomes, but managed to save millions of dollars. They're rich.
To me the ultra rich are those who can live the flashy lifestyle, blowing lots of money on pointless things and still accumulate lasting wealth.
For me? I could easily make myself rich in the long run making $100k a year. I may be able to do it on $75k, check back in 25 years. :)
-
I think it also depends where you live. If I made $200k here in Western Pennsylvania, that would get me a heck of a lot farther than that same income in California or NYC.
-
It's just a snapshot of your own perspective. From where you sit, what do you consider rich? I realize geography and spending habits have a lot to do with it.
-
I voted a million or higher because that was the highest on the poll, but I'd say $10 million+.
-
I voted 200k, but its a pretty hard thing to pin down. For myself and my spending habits, if I made 200k/year I would definitely feel rich.
-
As a point of reference, here's some stats (https://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/) on income in the US:
WHAT THE TOP 1%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 50% MAKE IN AMERICA
Based on the Internal Revenue Service’s 2010 database below, here’s how much the top Americans make:
Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048
-
Married, single, dependents?
Someone making $150,000 annually is a financial class above a middle class family pulling in $60,000.
-
Household income. I'll edit the question
-
Married, single, dependents?
Someone making $150,000 annually is a financial class above a middle class family pulling in $60,000.
Right, but does that make the $150k earning person/family "rich" ??
From my perspective, no, but my household income puts me almost into the 1% so I'm probably biased
-
I think you're definitely out of the middle class by that point, but I can see why someone who makes more doesn't think of it as rich. I might consider calling that range the lower rich. Ample disposable income and living decisions are based on quality, not necessity, but, yeah, they can't go nuts with any purchase they want.
-
Unless you live in a very expensive part of the country, it should be very, very easy to live on $150k a year. If you (not necessarily you Kirk, but a generic "you") can't live very comfortably on $150k a year in 99% of American cities, you're wasting a lot of money on things that aren't really necessary. At that point, you're choosing not to be rich because of your lifestyle. That my be easily justifiable (putting your kids in great private schools, giving a lot to charity, etc) but also could mean that you enjoy buying expensive vehicles and having a large house. Not that those are bad things necessarily if they're are important to you, but it's hard to look at someone making that much money and feel any sympathy if they claim they're hard off.
-
Define "rich". To me, being rich has nothing to do with money.
-
Define "rich". To me, being rich has nothing to do with money.
That's another topic. This poll is about the financial definition of rich. :biggrin:
-
i went with $250k
1. "rich" is often more than what you make
2. you spend what you make, therefore it is rare for someone to have excess money
-
2. you spend what you make, therefore it is rare for someone to have excess money
That's a bad generalization. My wife and I only slightly changed our lifestyle when our income quadrupled. We saved money like crazy for awhile, although having a daughter slowed that down. :lol
-
Unless you live in a very expensive part of the country, it should be very, very easy to live on $150k a year. If you (not necessarily you Kirk, but a generic "you") can't live very comfortably on $150k a year in 99% of American cities, you're wasting a lot of money on things that aren't really necessary. At that point, you're choosing not to be rich because of your lifestyle. That my be easily justifiable (putting your kids in great private schools, giving a lot to charity, etc) but also could mean that you enjoy buying expensive vehicles and having a large house. Not that those are bad things necessarily if they're are important to you, but it's hard to look at someone making that much money and feel any sympathy if they claim they're hard off.
I think "rich" is a relative term, but to me I would have to be 100% financially independent in order to consider myself rich. In other words, if I would walk away from my job right this minute and never even have to think about working another day in my life, I'd consider myself rich. Until I can do that, I'm not rich. Yeah, sure, my wife and I have a pretty hefty combined income and we basically both buy whatever we want, pretty much whenever we want it, but we also both need to keep working in order to maintain this lifestyle. I don't classify that as "rich"
-
2. you spend what you make, therefore it is rare for someone to have excess money
That's a bad generalization. My wife and I only slightly changed our lifestyle when our income quadrupled. We saved money like crazy for awhile, although having a daughter slowed that down. :lol
I think it's a fine generalization. Obviously there are exceptions, but the majority of people would increase their spending if they got a raise rather than save more. I'm with you in that I've basically banked any pay increases I've gotten, but we're not your typical American in that regard.
-
As income increases I believe investment increases, that's saving.
-
2. you spend what you make, therefore it is rare for someone to have excess money
That's a bad generalization. My wife and I only slightly changed our lifestyle when our income quadrupled. We saved money like crazy for awhile, although having a daughter slowed that down. :lol
You know what, though, I think he's got a point. For example, when I was still climbing the corporate ladder and making half of what I make now, I didn't own a lot of music equipment because I couldn't afford to buy it. Now I've got half a dozen high-end guitars, 5 amplifiers, a very, very well-equipped recording studio in my house, etc......i.e. you spend what you make (or what you can afford)
Of course, my wife and I married relatively late in life and had no children (my son is 25 and from a previous marriage and has never lived with me).....so we don't have a lot of expenses other than me paying my mother's rent and car payment and for her recreational activities.
-
As income increases I believe investment increases, that's saving.
Among people making decent money you're probably right. I'll go out on a limb and guess that the bottom 50% in the pay scale would spend any increase they got rather than start investing much. But I could be wrong.
I would guess that most people would continue to save the same percentage of their income. If Joe used to save 10% of his $50k salary and got a big raise to $70k, he'd probably still save 10%, increasing his spending by quite a bit in the process, though also increasing his saving.
-
Unless you live in a very expensive part of the country, it should be very, very easy to live on $150k a year.
I live just outside of Boston, MA - one of the most expensive places in the US. I was able to put my wife through full time college for 4 years all while paying my mother's rent and utility bills along with our mortgage and household expenses on less than $150k
In other words, you're right :tup
-
I live a couple hours from Boston. Every time we go there we think it would be great to live there, but it's just too damn expensive. Nice city though.
I think "rich" is a relative term, but to me I would have to be 100% financially independent in order to consider myself rich.
That's a fair definition. I'm sure if you and your wife really wanted to, you could be completely financially independent sooner than you might think. It would take some major lifestyle changes that you probably wouldn't be interested in though. That's what makes this such an interesting question. It's really completely different for everyone pretty much based on the lifestyle to choose to live and want to maintain. If I could make $150k a year, I could have a million bucks in the bank in 10 years and never need to work again because I have no interest in increasing my spending habits. In fact I'd love to decrease them even further.
-
I live a couple hours from Boston. Every time we go there we think it would be great to live there, but it's just too damn expensive. Nice city though.
I've seen 2 bedroom apartments in the Back Bay area advertised for as much as $4k per month.
I almost bought a rental in the Hyde Park section of Boston last year. It was in foreclosure and they still wanted $580k for it. Two family house, each unit is 3 bedrooms and about 1300 sq. ft with a single bathroom. On a postage stamp size piece of property with people selling crack down on the corner. :yeahright
-
2. you spend what you make, therefore it is rare for someone to have excess money
That's a bad generalization. My wife and I only slightly changed our lifestyle when our income quadrupled. We saved money like crazy for awhile, although having a daughter slowed that down. :lol
that's awesome! in my experience, though, you are among the "rare."
-
I selected $100k as being 'rich', seems like lots of others have too, maybe it's just easy to go for that amount as it's the first instance of six figures. I earn a little over $15k so even $40 would be like crazy money for me.
-
@A few people: Yeah, I think spending goes up as income increases, I don't dispute that at all. More income offers more opportunity for investment and saving, though. I don't think it's unusual for those making more money to also start padding their futures.
-
I voted 1M+
In reality, the definition has been posted in this thread of what i believe rich to be. Like, spending on flashy cars and being irresponsible with money but it having no real impact on your finances.
-
@A few people: Yeah, I think spending goes up as income increases, I don't dispute that at all. More income offers more opportunity for investment and saving, though. I don't think it's unusual for those making more money to also start padding their futures.
No, you're right. In fact, in the last 7 years I've been promoted 3 times at work, and those promotions all included substantial pay increases. Each year I added a LOT to my 401k contributions and now I am actually contributing the max, whereas when I made less I wasn't contributing anywhere near the max. My wife and I have also moved a lot of our savings into short-term CDs to try to maximize return while not tying the money up for a long time, in case the right house comes along at the right price.....so the point is, I think you are right that at a certain point, as income goes up, people (at least smart ones) should tend to put more money away for the future.
-
I voted $100,000 based on what that would mean to me. That would be so much more than I would really need in a year. I have no desire for a big house or fancy car. A decent-sized place to live and a working, cleaned up car+insurance/gas would be the bulk of my expenses.
-
Casually speaking, I'd consider 100k "rich" (so much more than what I make that I really can't imagine), but really, I'd say 250K+. That's a lot of money, even if you aren't aware of it, and you don't have that much left over at the end of the month, becuase you spend more on things you don't need to (because you're rich).
-
I voted 500k, but then as others have pointed out there are other factors.
it's interesting seeing the wide variations in the answers of this poll. I think 100k isn't a lot of money, but then I know a few people who make that kind of money and easily see half of of it go to debt payments. So being rich isn't just what you make or have in the bank, it's how you choose to spend it IMO.
-
I'm glad I am leaving undergrad school this week with only about 6 grand of debt, compared to what I see a lot of other people leave school with. I also just paid off my car, so no more car payments.
I hate having debt, like anyone else that isn't rolling in money. I plan to start paying off as much as possible once I start my career so I don't have to worry about debts. Only then will I feel sort of "rich," or at least financially comfortable and worry-free in that aspect.
-
I went with 500k, a level that I believe a regular household would be able to live reasonably free and easy given they don't go subprime and take out massive loans or anything like that. If my household earned 500k (so we pulled ~7k per week after tax), we would be very comfortable and be able to build up a Chinese-size warchest of savings and investments.
My household is at 110k right now, and living comfortably but by no means extravagently or excessively (have private health insurance, two cars, go out regularly - only middle class staple we don't have is Foxtel). We don't need to borrow any more to fund things like houses or cars, so the plan from here is essentially to start building the empire. Our debt levels are probably around 35% of our income, so not huge but on the larger side I would think. Its a deliberate move, in my line of work its highly unlikely that I will lose income moving jobs, and my wife is in an industry that can reward handsomely if you are committed. And so, assuming things don't turn to shit (you can never really plan any other way, IMO) our living standards will only go up from here.
A doubling of our income would just go to paying down debt and investing, but a five-fold increase...I would consider ourselves rich.
A few broader observations:
- Rich is a very subjective term. 500k for someone with a propensity to binge spend or be irresponsbile is probably not much, but 500k for someone who is a squirrel would probably be rich.
- The way I see it, people's marginal propsensity to consume (percentage of additional dollar of income earned that is spent) is very high up until really high income levels. I would say, with little basis, that most households would spend 80% or more of additional income earned right up until you hit the million plus income mark (I'm counting debt repayments as spending here, btw, but not investments or savings). There is always more stuff to buy, and so earning more income doesn't necesserally equate to being "rich".
-
That's a good post, Riceball
-
I voted 500k, but then as others have pointed out there are other factors.
it's interesting seeing the wide variations in the answers of this poll. I think 100k isn't a lot of money, but then I know a few people who make that kind of money and easily see half of of it go to debt payments. So being rich isn't just what you make or have in the bank, it's how you choose to spend it IMO.
It IS very interesting and that's why I made the poll. Yesterday a friend of mine on another web site told me "well, I'm not rich like you are" and it got me thinking that the term "rich" is really a pretty relative term. To a person making 25k per year, I'm sure 100k per year seems rich, but once you arrive at 100k per year (as I did many years ago) you realize that you are, in fact, not really rich at all. What happened with me was my lifestyle sort of kept pace with my income. As I made more money, I spent more money. New cars, had a boat for a while, motorcycle, timeshare condo, etc.....but as I've gotten older and my income has gone up, I've become much more responsible with my money and now I mostly just save it because I'm not counting on Social Security at all.
-
I went with $500K, but I think I'm being a little arbitrary with that.
In general, I agree with kirksnosehair that the truly rich are independently wealthy, and don't work "for a living."
-
I went with $500K, but I think I'm being a little arbitrary with that.
In general, I agree with kirksnosehair that the truly rich are independently wealthy, and don't work "for a living."
So, Donald Trump isn't rich? The man works 18 hour days most of the time.
-
I went with $500K, but I think I'm being a little arbitrary with that.
In general, I agree with kirksnosehair that the truly rich are independently wealthy, and don't work "for a living."
So, Donald Trump isn't rich? The man works 18 hour days most of the time.
My dad has a saying, "If you do what you love, you'll never work a day in your life."
Yeah, Trump works a lot, but if he loves what he does, then he has fun doing it (and does very well at it).
-
I concur with a few others - to me someone is rich if they can live extravagantly without detriment to saving.
-
extravagance is subjective.
Pretty much anyone with disposable income is rich to me.
-
extravagance is subjective.
Pretty much anyone with disposable income is rich to me.
-
As I made more money, I spent more money. New cars, had a boat for a while, motorcycle, timeshare condo, etc.....but as I've gotten older and my income has gone up, I've become much more responsible with my money and now I mostly just save it because I'm not counting on Social Security at all.
Exactly, and how does that not make you rich?
-
It's subjective. I define rich as being able to live in your ideal comfort without working to sustain your ideal comfort, e.g., having a guaranteed 25k/year produces your ideal comfort and this 25k/year is produced with little to no effort.
-
I went with $500K, but I think I'm being a little arbitrary with that.
In general, I agree with kirksnosehair that the truly rich are independently wealthy, and don't work "for a living."
So, Donald Trump isn't rich? The man works 18 hour days most of the time.
??? Of course Donald Trump is rich. He works because he loves to work. He isn't doing it "for a living." He doesn't need to make a living, he's already made so much money that he would never have to work another day in his life. That doesn't mean he should stop working if he doesn't want to.
-
As I made more money, I spent more money. New cars, had a boat for a while, motorcycle, timeshare condo, etc.....but as I've gotten older and my income has gone up, I've become much more responsible with my money and now I mostly just save it because I'm not counting on Social Security at all.
Exactly, and how does that not make you rich?
In my opinion you are "rich" when you have the option to work or not work and you could maintain your current lifestyle either way, indefinitely. I am nowhere near having it like that.
-
As I made more money, I spent more money. New cars, had a boat for a while, motorcycle, timeshare condo, etc.....but as I've gotten older and my income has gone up, I've become much more responsible with my money and now I mostly just save it because I'm not counting on Social Security at all.
Exactly, and how does that not make you rich?
In my opinion you are "rich" when you have the option to work or not work and you could maintain your current lifestyle either way, indefinitely. I am nowhere near having it like that.
See, my definition of rich is having that nice new car, a BOAT, getting to travel around the globe, having "check ups" with a doctor, and a bunch of other things you probably take for granted. You obviously have disposable income, and no one is forcing you to spend that on something, and there's nothing that says you can't just save that en masse until you could retire from an economic job.
-
I've had another read through the thread and a bit more of a think on the issue (yeah, I'm that boring). It seems as though there is a pretty clear dichotemy:
- Lower income/starting out persons: rich = being able to buy more stuff
- Middle income/established persons: rich = being able to invest and save
- Higher income/savers & investors: rich = extravegance and wasteful spending
Does that sound right? It just seems that the lines are pretty clear.
-
I went with $500K, but I think I'm being a little arbitrary with that.
In general, I agree with kirksnosehair that the truly rich are independently wealthy, and don't work "for a living."
So, Donald Trump isn't rich? The man works 18 hour days most of the time.
My dad has a saying, "If you do what you love, you'll never work a day in your life."
Yeah, Trump works a lot, but if he loves what he does, then he has fun doing it (and does very well at it).
Do we know Trump loves what he does?
Some people are simply greedy and are never satisfied no matter how much money they make. These people are also miserable most of the time.
-
I've had another read through the thread and a bit more of a think on the issue (yeah, I'm that boring). It seems as though there is a pretty clear dichotemy:
- Lower income/starting out persons: rich = being able to buy more stuff
- Middle income/established persons: rich = being able to invest and save
- Higher income/savers & investors: rich = extravegance and wasteful spending
Does that sound right? It just seems that the lines are pretty clear.
Well, personally as a lower income / starting out person, I'd say a couple of things I don't like about that quick definition (though generally, I think you're right with the general trend):
Being able to buy more stuff is being able to invest and save; you're just investing in very crappy products, and you're choosing not to save.
And I'm also a lower income / starting out person, but since I'm living at home, I'm technically saving most of my money, but there's no way I'm rich.
-
I've had another read through the thread and a bit more of a think on the issue (yeah, I'm that boring). It seems as though there is a pretty clear dichotemy:
- Lower income/starting out persons: rich = being able to buy more stuff
- Middle income/established persons: rich = being able to invest and save
- Higher income/savers & investors: rich = extravegance and wasteful spending
Does that sound right? It just seems that the lines are pretty clear.
Not me. I am definitely in the "Higher Income" bracket by your measure, and I sill maintain that "Rich" is 100% financial independence - which means having the choice to work or not work and being able to maintain my current lifestyle indefinitely regardless of whether or not I work. I am nowhere near that.
And no offense intended at all to Scheavo here, dude, but believe me when I tell you this: You have absolutely no idea what I do and do not take for granted. Yes, I have a nice income, but I also work 70+ hours per week, each and every week, to maintain it. And I arrived here having come a little over 13 years ago from having exactly $164.00 to my name. I take NOTHING for granted. NOTHING.
-
Not me. I am definitely in the "Higher Income" bracket by your measure, and I sill maintain that "Rich" is 100% financial independence - which means having the choice to work or not work and being able to maintain my current lifestyle indefinitely regardless of whether or not I work. I am nowhere near that.
I think that would disqualify a lot of people we typically consider rich. How many athletes have we heard of going broke because they couldn't adapt their lifestyle after leaving sports? Hard to find a well that can't dry up, very few people must be considered rich in that definition.
On the other hand, someone living a meager lifestyle might be able to fit your definition without having much money. To be honest, it kind of seems like you're equating ability to retire with being rich. One direction makes sense, rich being able to retire, but I don't think being able to retire (without government aid I suppose) means you're rich.
----------------
I think there's a problem with what's rich and what's it mean to be in a rich income bracket. Are people in a position where maintaining status quo would get them to rich also be considered rich?
-
Not me. I am definitely in the "Higher Income" bracket by your measure, and I sill maintain that "Rich" is 100% financial independence - which means having the choice to work or not work and being able to maintain my current lifestyle indefinitely regardless of whether or not I work. I am nowhere near that.
I think that would disqualify a lot of people we typically consider rich. How many athletes have we heard of going broke because they couldn't adapt their lifestyle after leaving sports? Hard to find a well that can't dry up, very few people must be considered rich in that definition.
On the other hand, someone living a meager lifestyle might be able to fit your definition without having much money. To be honest, it kind of seems like you're equating ability to retire with being rich.
I equate "rich" with 100% financial independence. It means much more than just being able to retire. It means if I want the latest Cadillac, I go down to the dealership this morning and order it. It means if I want to get on a plane and go to London to hang out with Karl Groom next week in his recording studio, I book the flight and go. It means if I want to buy my mother a new house I buy her a new house. It means if I want to travel the world for a year, I book a flight to my first destination, or maybe charter a jet and go. It also means if I want to work I work if I don't want to work I don't work.
Complete financial independence. Being able to retire is just one component of it.
-
Personally, I think we have a warped sense of "rich" in many western societies. To me, "rich" means you will never realistically have to worry about not having more food and clothing than you need, having some sort of roof over your head, and still having enough to buy toys, take vacations, and do other things that are pure luxuries and in no way essential. It's both funny and sad to me that we so easily take abundance for granted.
-
I equate "rich" with 100% financial independence. It means much more than just being able to retire. It means if I want the latest Cadillac, I go down to the dealership this morning and order it. It means if I want to get on a plane and go to London to hang out with Karl Groom next week in his recording studio, I book the flight and go. It means if I want to buy my mother a new house I buy her a new house. It means if I want to travel the world for a year, I book a flight to my first destination, or maybe charter a jet and go. It also means if I want to work I work if I don't want to work I don't work.
Complete financial independence. Being able to retire is just one component of it.
That's more than independence, although, I suppose we just have a different view in that regards. What you're claiming for rich means nobody is rich, though, you have to draw the line somewhere. If I want to buy a military to match the US's but can't afford it, all of a sudden I'm not rich?
-
I equate "rich" with 100% financial independence. It means much more than just being able to retire. It means if I want the latest Cadillac, I go down to the dealership this morning and order it. It means if I want to get on a plane and go to London to hang out with Karl Groom next week in his recording studio, I book the flight and go. It means if I want to buy my mother a new house I buy her a new house. It means if I want to travel the world for a year, I book a flight to my first destination, or maybe charter a jet and go. It also means if I want to work I work if I don't want to work I don't work.
Complete financial independence. Being able to retire is just one component of it.
That's more than independence, although, I suppose we just have a different view in that regards. What you're claiming for rich means nobody is rich, though, you have to draw the line somewhere. If I want to buy a military to match the US's but can't afford it, all of a sudden I'm not rich?
Yeah, he's really describing filthy, stinkin' rich in my book. If that's what he requires to be rich, that's fine, but I disagree. I buy the financial independence thing, but for me that would mean maintaining my current lifestyle without having to work another day, not increasing my lifestyle to ridiculous excess while not needing to work another day.
-
I equate "rich" with 100% financial independence. It means much more than just being able to retire. It means if I want the latest Cadillac, I go down to the dealership this morning and order it. It means if I want to get on a plane and go to London to hang out with Karl Groom next week in his recording studio, I book the flight and go. It means if I want to buy my mother a new house I buy her a new house. It means if I want to travel the world for a year, I book a flight to my first destination, or maybe charter a jet and go. It also means if I want to work I work if I don't want to work I don't work.
Complete financial independence. Being able to retire is just one component of it.
That's more than independence, although, I suppose we just have a different view in that regards. What you're claiming for rich means nobody is rich, though, you have to draw the line somewhere. If I want to buy a military to match the US's but can't afford it, all of a sudden I'm not rich?
Say what? :lol Man, where did you get that? Again, I equate rich with 100% financial independence. There's no need to add anything else to that. Personal financial independence. A state in which money, or lack thereof, is no longer a factor in your decision making process. Sometimes I think you guys just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I did not write that an inability to acquire a military to match the United States means you're not rich. You did.
Here, maybe this will help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_independence
-
I equate "rich" with 100% financial independence. It means much more than just being able to retire. It means if I want the latest Cadillac, I go down to the dealership this morning and order it. It means if I want to get on a plane and go to London to hang out with Karl Groom next week in his recording studio, I book the flight and go. It means if I want to buy my mother a new house I buy her a new house. It means if I want to travel the world for a year, I book a flight to my first destination, or maybe charter a jet and go. It also means if I want to work I work if I don't want to work I don't work.
Complete financial independence. Being able to retire is just one component of it.
That's more than independence, although, I suppose we just have a different view in that regards. What you're claiming for rich means nobody is rich, though, you have to draw the line somewhere. If I want to buy a military to match the US's but can't afford it, all of a sudden I'm not rich?
Yeah, he's really describing filthy, stinkin' rich in my book. If that's what he requires to be rich, that's fine, but I disagree. I buy the financial independence thing, but for me that would mean maintaining my current lifestyle without having to work another day, not increasing my lifestyle to ridiculous excess while not needing to work another day.
Well, as we can see from this thread, "RICH" means different things to different people.
Look at the poll results. There are some people here who feel "rich" is someone who makes $100k per year. To me, that's certainly a "good living wage" (I have a few staff at that income level) but it's pretty far from rich.
But rich is a relative term. A lot of people here are very young compared to me and just starting out in life. I'm close to 50 years old with a lot more road behind me than in front of me. Perspectives change. I suspect a lot of you will be in the same position I am in when you reach my age. You'll be homeowners, you'll have 401k accounts or some other retirement plan. You'll have investments, savings, equity in your home, etc. You will have accumulated some wealth. And you'll look up one day and you'll realize that the lifestyle you have is one you used to envy. You just have to work hard and be smart to get there.
Hell, man, like I posted above, about 13 years ago all I had ON THE ENTIRE PLANET was less than $200 and a bag of clothes.
At that point in my life when I looked at my future brother-in-law, who was a cement truck driver making about $50k per year, he seemed rich to me. Yes, it is a relative term. But now I just think to be rich is to be financially independent as described in that wiki. I've used a little hyperbole in this thread to describe it (traveling the world, buying cadillacs, etc) but the fact is I just think that financial independence (as described in the wiki) is "rich" and if I had money like that I would do something like what Bill Gates is doing with his money. I'd try to make a difference with it somehow. Have a positive impact.
-
I equate "rich" with 100% financial independence. It means much more than just being able to retire. It means if I want the latest Cadillac, I go down to the dealership this morning and order it. It means if I want to get on a plane and go to London to hang out with Karl Groom next week in his recording studio, I book the flight and go. It means if I want to buy my mother a new house I buy her a new house. It means if I want to travel the world for a year, I book a flight to my first destination, or maybe charter a jet and go. It also means if I want to work I work if I don't want to work I don't work.
Complete financial independence. Being able to retire is just one component of it.
That's more than independence, although, I suppose we just have a different view in that regards. What you're claiming for rich means nobody is rich, though, you have to draw the line somewhere. If I want to buy a military to match the US's but can't afford it, all of a sudden I'm not rich?
Say what? :lol Man, where did you get that? Again, I equate rich with 100% financial independence. There's no need to add anything else to that. Personal financial independence. A state in which money, or lack thereof, is no longer a factor in your decision making process. Sometimes I think you guys just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I did not write that an inability to acquire a military to match the United States means you're not rich. You did.
Here, maybe this will help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_independence
Of course I wrote it, and it was supposed to be extreme. The point is, you mention being able to go freely buy something well beyond a necessity. Where is the line for your definition? Everyone has some line they can't cross.
Even the wiki article you post points out someone making $100 a month can be financially independent. That's counter to what you're claiming, no?
-
Well, as we can see from this thread, "RICH" means different things to different people.
Absolutely, I think this has been a really interesting thread. I think more than anything it shows the difference in people's consumption level or the consumption level they assume they would have if they made a certain amount of money. The ability to be financially independent has more to do with your consumption level than your income.
-
I went with $500K, but I think I'm being a little arbitrary with that.
In general, I agree with kirksnosehair that the truly rich are independently wealthy, and don't work "for a living."
So, Donald Trump isn't rich? The man works 18 hour days most of the time.
My dad has a saying, "If you do what you love, you'll never work a day in your life."
Yeah, Trump works a lot, but if he loves what he does, then he has fun doing it (and does very well at it).
Do we know Trump loves what he does?
I don't know if he does. to tie Trump to your "greed" comment, he might just love accumulating wealth and sees his job as a means to that end. But this obviously is just speculation.
-
Well, as we can see from this thread, "RICH" means different things to different people.
Absolutely, I think this has been a really interesting thread. I think more than anything it shows the difference in people's consumption level or the consumption level they assume they would have if they made a certain amount of money. The ability to be financially independent has more to do with your consumption level than your income.
That's a good point. Consumption is an important part of the "financial independence" equation.
-
I equate "rich" with 100% financial independence. It means much more than just being able to retire. It means if I want the latest Cadillac, I go down to the dealership this morning and order it. It means if I want to get on a plane and go to London to hang out with Karl Groom next week in his recording studio, I book the flight and go. It means if I want to buy my mother a new house I buy her a new house. It means if I want to travel the world for a year, I book a flight to my first destination, or maybe charter a jet and go. It also means if I want to work I work if I don't want to work I don't work.
Complete financial independence. Being able to retire is just one component of it.
That's more than independence, although, I suppose we just have a different view in that regards. What you're claiming for rich means nobody is rich, though, you have to draw the line somewhere. If I want to buy a military to match the US's but can't afford it, all of a sudden I'm not rich?
Say what? :lol Man, where did you get that? Again, I equate rich with 100% financial independence. There's no need to add anything else to that. Personal financial independence. A state in which money, or lack thereof, is no longer a factor in your decision making process. Sometimes I think you guys just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I did not write that an inability to acquire a military to match the United States means you're not rich. You did.
Here, maybe this will help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_independence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_independence)
Of course I wrote it, and it was supposed to be extreme. The point is, you mention being able to go freely buy something well beyond a necessity. Where is the line for your definition? Everyone has some line they can't cross.
Even the wiki article you post points out someone making $100 a month can be financially independent. That's counter to what you're claiming, no?
But as you were making a point so was I. Nothing more. I was making a point about 100% financial independence. To me it's a standard of living whereby money becomes a non-issue in your life. I am sure that some people can be "financially independent" on $100 per month, but it would not meet the definition of financial independence as I see it.
I think to some extent "financial independence" is a relative term.
-
And no offense intended at all to Scheavo here, dude, but believe me when I tell you this: You have absolutely no idea what I do and do not take for granted. Yes, I have a nice income, but I also work 70+ hours per week, each and every week, to maintain it. And I arrived here having come a little over 13 years ago from having exactly $164.00 to my name. I take NOTHING for granted. NOTHING.
"Taking for granted" here means forgetting what it is like to not have it, which is basic human psychology (human's get used to what they have / what is), didn't mean to imply that you don't deserve much of your success, or that you take everything for granted.
By the way, so a subsistence farmer is to you "rich"? To be clear, I'm not sure how much I would disagree with you, if so - if I had the money, I'd instantly buy land, build a nice house with solar panels, geothermal, and all those other great things, and a large aquaponic green house - I just think that defining "rich" as financially independent brings up some interesting possibilities for being rich. It also means persona disposition would have to play into when and how someone is "rich."
Personally, I think we have a warped sense of "rich" in many western societies. To me, "rich" means you will never realistically have to worry about not having more food and clothing than you need, having some sort of roof over your head, and still having enough to buy toys, take vacations, and do other things that are pure luxuries and in no way essential. It's both funny and sad to me that we so easily take abundance for granted.
I agree with this (which makes me reconsider my position). As a poor person in America, I do have it better than a lot of semi-"wealthy" people around the world. Think I was in the 87% with my sub-poverty line income.
-
By the way, so a subsistence farmer is to you "rich"?
by the way, the term "subsistence farmer" doesn't appear in any of my posts until now. This place cracks me up. I love how you guys take what someone writes, add a bunch of shit to it, and then attribute it to that person. :lol
It's like if I write "I like having nice fire going on a warm winter night"
Someone will quote my post and write "So, you think it's OK to be a pyromaniac? really? :eek Damn, dude, that's fucked up!"
-
Someone will quote my post and write "So, you think it's OK to be a pyromaniac? really?
So, do you?
-
By the way, so a subsistence farmer is to you "rich"?
by the way, the term "subsistence farmer" doesn't appear in any of my posts until now. This place cracks me up. I love how you guys take what someone writes, add a bunch of shit to it, and then attribute it to that person. :lol
It's like if I write "I like having nice fire going on a warm winter night"
Someone will quote my post and write "So, you think it's OK to be a pyromaniac? really? :eek Damn, dude, that's fucked up!"
So, let me get this right:
Well, as we can see from this thread, "RICH" means different things to different people.
Absolutely, I think this has been a really interesting thread. I think more than anything it shows the difference in people's consumption level or the consumption level they assume they would have if they made a certain amount of money. The ability to be financially independent has more to do with your consumption level than your income.
That's a good point. Consumption is an important part of the "financial independence" equation.
It's the same point, just a more dramatic rendering of this point. I simply pointed out how Consumption, or lack of consumption, means the equation is pretty much zero anyways.
And I never quoted you, I asked you a question, due to the definition of rich that you seem to be giving. You obviously think what I asked is ludicrous, which is really what I what you to think. The definition of rich you are giving is inadequate, as it defines things which are laughably "rich."
-
You baffle me. Very weird way of discussing things. Sorry, I don't have any answers for you that I haven't already posted here.
-
JUST ANSWER THE PYROMANIAC QUESTION!!! :onfire:
-
:lol
Well, actually, I do have a wood-burning stove :eek
-
I don't think 1 million per year or higher actually defines rich for me. I think "rich" is much higher. Of course some people obviousy define being "rich" in other ways. Regardless it's all relative to your own experience.
Some of you stated earning over 100K each year means you're rich. What about two people with equal $100,000/year incomes? What if one has $100,000 in credit card debt? Is he still rich? What if one has higher expenses because they are paying for college for one of their kids? Are they still rich?
Personally, I earn more money than anyone in the history of my family. I can afford to travel when and to where I want. I pay cash for most of my purchases. We have multiple homes. My family wears nice clothes, and we have nice things. I have a few "toys" that I've treated myself to through the years. I don't "worry" about having liquid assets to pay my basic bills with. I don't have "run out and buy a 747 kind of money", but I don't want one anyway. :lol
Most people would define the rich as people who don’t think about what it means to consume in the way they’re consuming. When most people think of rich people, there’s a negative connotation. People think rich people are selfish. If I shared my portfolio with you, most of you would say I'm rich. But I wouldn't do that. I'm blasted for sharing practically anything on this site. But I wouldn't say that I'm rich.
Does being rich mean having a large income? Does it mean having a certain net worth? If so, then I think Warren Buffet is rich, from a financial perspective. Don't get me wrong...I'm not complaining by any means, but I'm still the same person who grew up with no money. I am frugal with my money. No one is sittin' around lighting cigars with 50's at my house. And I DO things with my money. I annonymously give to about a dozen or so charities each year. And I publically support others both physicaly and financially.
Now, if were talking about social capital, then I'd agree that I am indeed rich. I have a very full life, and many, many close friends that I enjoy. To me that's more a definition of rich than financial considerations.
-
Some of you stated earning over 100K each year means you're rich. What about two people with equal $100,000/year incomes? What if one has $100,000 in credit card debt? Is he still rich? What if one has higher expenses because they are paying for college for one of their kids? Are they still rich?
This is why this is such a personal question really. I would be rich with $100k a year because of my spending habits and my debt situation. If I made the equivalent of $100k a year for the rest of my working life adjusting for inflation, I would be able to save about $3000 a month after my typical expenses, say $2500 just to be safe. If I invested $2000 of that, I'd have close to $3 million dollars in today's money at age 60. Plenty for me to retire comfortably. I'm the type of person who will quit working as soon as I'm financially able to, so this is how I define rich.
-
:lol
Well, actually, I do have a wood-burning stove :eek
No serenade? No fire brigade?
-
:lol
Well, actually, I do have a wood-burning stove :eek
No serenade? No fire brigade?
Come on, what do you want? What DO YOU want? :hat
-
I WANT $500k Per Year or Higher.
-
I want Rock & Roll, long live Rock & Roll :metal
-
So unlike how many people here seem to be discussing, "rich" is not a subjective term - relative is not subjective - and there is a very concrete definition.
https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rich
having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy: a rich man; a rich nation
https://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rich&allowed_in_frame=0
wealthy, powerful, mighty," from P.Gmc. *rikijaz (cf. O.N. rikr, O.H.G. rihhi "ruler, powerful, rich," O.Fris. rike, Du. rijk, Ger. reich "rich," Goth. reiks "ruler, powerful, rich"), borrowed from a Celtic source akin to Gaulish *rix, O.Ir. ri (gen. rig) "king," from PIE base *reg- "move in a straight line," hence, "direct, rule" (see rex). The form of the word influenced in M.E. by O.Fr. riche "wealthy," from Frank. *riki "powerful," from the Germanic source. The evolution of the word reflects a connection between wealth and power in the ancient world. Of food and colors, from early 14c.; of sounds, from 1590s. Sense of "entertaining, amusing" is recorded from 1760. The noun meaning "the wealthy" was in O.E.
It's relative, because he has to do with your sway in society - as in, in each society, a "rich" person is going to have differing wealth's - but this is not subjective. Either you have a lot of possessions, or you do not; either you have social power, or you do not.
-
I think the takeaway here is that people, even those with a lot of money, are reluctant to call themselves rich.
-
"I'm not talking about rich, I'm talking about wealth."
-
I think the takeaway here is that people, even those with a lot of money, are reluctant to call themselves rich.
just last week my daughter said that her friends at school call her the rich kid. I was pretty shocked when I heard that. Our family is very blessed right now, but "rich" is usually someone else.
-
Either you have a lot of possessions, or you do not; either you have social power, or you do not.
Basically everyone in America has a lot of possessions, so that's really a moot point. And what is a lot of possessions? It's still pretty subjective. I doubt too many people would have social power as a prerequisite to being rich in America today.
-
I don't think 1 million per year or higher actually defines rich for me. I think "rich" is much higher. Of course some people obviousy define being "rich" in other ways. Regardless it's all relative to your own experience.
Some of you stated earning over 100K each year means you're rich. What about two people with equal $100,000/year incomes? What if one has $100,000 in credit card debt? Is he still rich? What if one has higher expenses because they are paying for college for one of their kids? Are they still rich?
Personally, I earn more money than anyone in the history of my family. I can afford to travel when and to where I want. I pay cash for most of my purchases. We have multiple homes. My family wears nice clothes, and we have nice things. I have a few "toys" that I've treated myself to through the years. I don't "worry" about having liquid assets to pay my basic bills with. I don't have "run out and buy a 747 kind of money", but I don't want one anyway. :lol
Most people would define the rich as people who don’t think about what it means to consume in the way they’re consuming. When most people think of rich people, there’s a negative connotation. People think rich people are selfish. If I shared my portfolio with you, most of you would say I'm rich. But I wouldn't do that. I'm blasted for sharing practically anything on this site. But I wouldn't say that I'm rich.
Does being rich mean having a large income? Does it mean having a certain net worth? If so, then I think Warren Buffet is rich, from a financial perspective. Don't get me wrong...I'm not complaining by any means, but I'm still the same person who grew up with no money. I am frugal with my money. No one is sittin' around lighting cigars with 50's at my house. And I DO things with my money. I annonymously give to about a dozen or so charities each year. And I publically support others both physicaly and financially.
Now, if were talking about social capital, then I'd agree that I am indeed rich. I have a very full life, and many, many close friends that I enjoy. To me that's more a definition of rich than financial considerations.
You can be humble all you want Temp, but based on things you've said over the years, I'd say you're pretty rich
-
I think the takeaway here is that people, even those with a lot of money, are reluctant to call themselves rich.
just last week my daughter said that her friends at school call her the rich kid. I was pretty shocked when I heard that. Our family is very blessed right now, but "rich" is usually someone else.
Which is why I think it's such a relative/subjective thing. Look at the poll responses. I have what most here would consider "a lot of money" but I am nowhere even remotely close to what I would consider rich, yet, I am sure that from the perspective of some who are reading this thread, they'd consider me "rich."
-
Either you have a lot of possessions, or you do not; either you have social power, or you do not.
Basically everyone in America has a lot of possessions, so that's really a moot point. And what is a lot of possessions? It's still pretty subjective. I doubt too many people would have social power as a prerequisite to being rich in America today.
"Social Power" (I think "influence" is a better word) is a result of being wealthy, not a prerequisite, IMHO.
-
Either you have a lot of possessions, or you do not; either you have social power, or you do not.
Basically everyone in America has a lot of possessions, so that's really a moot point. And what is a lot of possessions? It's still pretty subjective. I doubt too many people would have social power as a prerequisite to being rich in America today.
"Social Power" (I think "influence" is a better word) is a result of being wealthy, not a prerequisite, IMHO.
I would agree with that. Especially for the ultra rich.
-
Thanks to Barry and Coz, I've now got that song stuck in my head for probably the rest of the day. Thanks, guys. I think for everyone's safety, this needs to be declared a Lep-free zone.
EDIT: And I'm surprised and disappointed that I cannot seem to find a standalone graphic of the Def Lep Pryomania "scope" that I can turn into an emoticon. :(
EDIT2: Well, the upside is, I'm listening to Mirrorball now, and it's pretty good.
-
I'm sorry if someone else mentioned this before but being rich has nothing to do with monies... that's what life has taught me......
-
Thanks to Barry and Coz, I've now got that song stuck in my head for probably the rest of the day. Thanks, guys. I think for everyone's safety, this needs to be declared a Lep-free zone.
EDIT: And I'm surprised and disappointed that I cannot seem to find a standalone graphic of the Def Lep Pryomania "scope" that I can turn into an emoticon. :(
EDIT2: Well, the upside is, I'm listening to Mirrorball now, and it's pretty good.
Mission accomplished.
-
I don't think 1 million per year or higher actually defines rich for me. I think "rich" is much higher. Of course some people obviousy define being "rich" in other ways. Regardless it's all relative to your own experience.
Some of you stated earning over 100K each year means you're rich. What about two people with equal $100,000/year incomes? What if one has $100,000 in credit card debt? Is he still rich? What if one has higher expenses because they are paying for college for one of their kids? Are they still rich?
Personally, I earn more money than anyone in the history of my family. I can afford to travel when and to where I want. I pay cash for most of my purchases. We have multiple homes. My family wears nice clothes, and we have nice things. I have a few "toys" that I've treated myself to through the years. I don't "worry" about having liquid assets to pay my basic bills with. I don't have "run out and buy a 747 kind of money", but I don't want one anyway. :lol
Most people would define the rich as people who don’t think about what it means to consume in the way they’re consuming. When most people think of rich people, there’s a negative connotation. People think rich people are selfish. If I shared my portfolio with you, most of you would say I'm rich. But I wouldn't do that. I'm blasted for sharing practically anything on this site. But I wouldn't say that I'm rich.
Does being rich mean having a large income? Does it mean having a certain net worth? If so, then I think Warren Buffet is rich, from a financial perspective. Don't get me wrong...I'm not complaining by any means, but I'm still the same person who grew up with no money. I am frugal with my money. No one is sittin' around lighting cigars with 50's at my house. And I DO things with my money. I annonymously give to about a dozen or so charities each year. And I publically support others both physicaly and financially.
Now, if were talking about social capital, then I'd agree that I am indeed rich. I have a very full life, and many, many close friends that I enjoy. To me that's more a definition of rich than financial considerations.
You can be humble all you want Temp, but based on things you've said over the years, I'd say you're pretty rich
I normally don't agree with PLM but this. Dude... it's self evident.
-
One of the big things this thread proves is that very few people probably believe themselves to be rich. There's always someone who has more money. That guy's rich, not me.
-
One of the big things this thread proves is that very few people probably believe themselves to be rich.
I do. And I still voted the lowest option ($50,000).
-
Can I borrow $80k Bosk? :-*
-
One of the big things this thread proves is that very few people probably believe themselves to be rich.
I do. And I still voted the lowest option ($50,000).
I work next to people all day that make about $12 an hour and take all the overtime they can just to make ends meet. I think I'm very well off, though I did vote $100k which is a bit higher than my actual salary.
-
Can I borrow $80k Bosk? :-*
If by "borrow," you mean you want to give me $420k and are asking for change back for $500k, then yes.
-
Location is definitely a factor.
My parents live on an island on the north-west coast of Scotland and they are considered to be paid quite well there but on the mainland, their salaries would only be about the average salaries for their job positions.
-
Either you have a lot of possessions, or you do not; either you have social power, or you do not.
Basically everyone in America has a lot of possessions, so that's really a moot point. And what is a lot of possessions? It's still pretty subjective. I doubt too many people would have social power as a prerequisite to being rich in America today.
How is that a moot point? Relative to any third world country, every single America is very rich. Even I could "live like a King" in several countries around the world.
You're also still conflating relative with subjective. Having "a lot" of things is not subjective, you can physically count them, and then to make it relative, you can compare that number with every one else's number, and you get a very accurate portrayal of how rich you are.