A Poll about being "Rich"

[kirksnosehair]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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."

[snapple]

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.

[carl320]

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).

[MetalMike06]

I concur with a few others - to me someone is rich if they can live extravagantly without detriment to saving.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

extravagance is subjective.

Pretty much anyone with disposable income is rich to me.

[snapple]

extravagance is subjective.

Pretty much anyone with disposable income is rich to me.

[Scheavo]

  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?                                                                                               

[abrahamclark]

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. 

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[kirksnosehair]

  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.

[Scheavo]

  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.

[Riceball]

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.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

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.

[Scheavo]

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.

[kirksnosehair]

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.

[yorost]

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?

[kirksnosehair]

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.   

[bosk1]

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.

[yorost]

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?

[lordxizor]

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.

[kirksnosehair]

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?     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

[kirksnosehair]

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.

[yorost]

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?     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?

[lordxizor]

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.

[carl320]

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.

[kirksnosehair]

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. 

[kirksnosehair]

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?     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?

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.

[Scheavo]

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.

[kirksnosehair]

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. 

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?     Damn, dude, that's fucked up!"

[bosk1]

Someone will quote my post and write "So, you think it's OK to be a pyromaniac?  really? 

So, do you?

[Scheavo]

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. 

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?     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."

[kirksnosehair]

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.

[bosk1]

JUST ANSWER THE PYROMANIAC QUESTION!!! 

[kirksnosehair]

 

Well, actually, I do have a wood-burning stove