If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chron)   Good news, everyone: You are now considered rich if you make $100K. 50% of Americans expected to be rich when the definition is changed again, to $50K next year   (chron.com) divider line 211
    More: Stupid, General Social Survey, concierge medicine, Oxford University Press, affluent, household incomes  
•       •       •

1439 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Dec 2013 at 11:44 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



211 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-12-09 11:31:22 AM
Made up largely of older professionals, working married couples and more educated singles, the new rich are those with household income of $250,000 or more at some point during their working lives. That puts them, if sometimes temporarily, in the top 2 percent of earners.

That's what TFA says all right.
 
2013-12-09 11:48:57 AM
A single person or a family of 2 making 100k a year should be labeled as "rich".  I couldn't imagine what I would do if my family of 5 made 100k combined, I would have no money worries.  At 100k a year that would mean you bring home almost 3k every 2 weeks, so about 6k per month of take home money.  Jesus you have to be living well outside of your means if you can't live off of that kind of money.
 
2013-12-09 11:49:14 AM

vpb: Made up largely of older professionals, working married couples and more educated singles, the new rich are those with household income of $250,000 or more at some point during their working lives. That puts them, if sometimes temporarily, in the top 2 percent of earners.

That's what TFA says all right.


TFA is bogus. Those people work for a living. The real rich are those that do not work; the investment class. Any change in definition is to deflect resentment to other hard working people.
 
2013-12-09 11:49:55 AM

vpb: Made up largely of older professionals, working married couples and more educated singles, the new rich are those with household income of $250,000 or more at some point during their working lives. That puts them, if sometimes temporarily, in the top 2 percent of earners.

That's what TFA says all right.


I know it is tough, but if you read just a little bit longer, you will get there:

Even outside periods of unusual wealth, members of this group generally hover in the $100,000-plus income range, keeping them in the top 20 percent of earners.

This little-known group may pose the biggest barrier to reducing the nation's income inequality.

LOL thats farking hilarious.

Yeah, it is those of us making 120k that are the problem.
 
2013-12-09 11:50:14 AM
Why would anyone try to classify such a subjective term?
 
2013-12-09 11:50:14 AM
 
2013-12-09 11:51:03 AM
Richness is relative. That's why rich people, as well as wanting to increase their own wealth, want to make poor people even poorer.
 
2013-12-09 11:52:04 AM
It's Paid Conservatroll Work-Week Monday!
 
2013-12-09 11:52:17 AM
You are rich, stop crying about it.
 
2013-12-09 11:52:56 AM
100k a year for a single person is an incredible amount of money. Trollmitter was expecting this type of response.
 
2013-12-09 11:53:18 AM

jst3p: vpb: Made up largely of older professionals, working married couples and more educated singles, the new rich are those with household income of $250,000 or more at some point during their working lives. That puts them, if sometimes temporarily, in the top 2 percent of earners.

That's what TFA says all right.

I know it is tough, but if you read just a little bit longer, you will get there:

Even outside periods of unusual wealth, members of this group generally hover in the $100,000-plus income range, keeping them in the top 20 percent of earners.

This little-known group may pose the biggest barrier to reducing the nation's income inequality.

LOL thats farking hilarious.

Yeah, it is those of us making 120k that are the problem.


The author sounds concerned.
 
2013-12-09 11:53:18 AM
It has been a long time since $100,000 was considered dirty rotten filthy stinking rich, but I can't think of any time when it hasn't at least been considered quite well-off. Inflation has not gotten that bad.
 
2013-12-09 11:54:36 AM

HotWingConspiracy: You are rich, stop crying about it.


Do you have a refrigerator?
//STFU you rich bastard
 
2013-12-09 11:55:56 AM
Actually wasn't a bad article.
 
2013-12-09 11:56:53 AM
Is your income more than 2 standrad deviations above the average? Then you're rich.
 
2013-12-09 11:57:20 AM

TNel: A single person or a family of 2 making 100k a year should be labeled as "rich".  I couldn't imagine what I would do if my family of 5 made 100k combined, I would have no money worries.  At 100k a year that would mean you bring home almost 3k every 2 weeks, so about 6k per month of take home money.  Jesus you have to be living well outside of your means if you can't live off of that kind of money.


I have a family of 3 with a 1,500 sqft house and my wife and I combined make about $100k per year.

We're nowhere near rich and it will be a huge struggle if we decide to have a 2nd kid.
 
2013-12-09 11:58:40 AM
The wife and I together make slightly less than that to raise a family of four. I wouldn't say we're filthy stinking rich, but we want for very little. We are extremely lucky.

Also, submitter, I like the idea of nationalized health insurance. Whaddaya think of that!?
 
2013-12-09 11:59:24 AM
Depends on where you live. 100k in North Dakota is a lot more than 100k in NYC or California
 
2013-12-09 11:59:55 AM

TNel: A single person or a family of 2 making 100k a year should be labeled as "rich".  I couldn't imagine what I would do if my family of 5 made 100k combined, I would have no money worries.  At 100k a year that would mean you bring home almost 3k every 2 weeks, so about 6k per month of take home money.  Jesus you have to be living well outside of your means if you can't live off of that kind of money.


You forget that as your salary increases so does your expected lifestyle. At $50K a year a modest one to three bedroom 900-1600 square foot in an okay, but not desired part of town is acceptable. Along with two older model used vehicles, for a family or one older model vehicle for a single person, and maybe a nice vacation a year is acceptable.

At $100K you need a new home in a new subdivision, along with HOA, two new cars, a truck, a boat, private school and at least one foreign vacation every three years to keep up with the Joneses.
 
2013-12-09 12:00:11 PM

TNel: A single person or a family of 2 making 100k a year should be labeled as "rich".  I couldn't imagine what I would do if my family of 5 made 100k combined, I would have no money worries.  At 100k a year that would mean you bring home almost 3k every 2 weeks, so about 6k per month of take home money.  Jesus you have to be living well outside of your means if you can't live off of that kind of money.


It can depend on where you live - in some of the more expensive cities rent/mortgages on even pretty average homes can take up a big chunk of that $6k and if you have pre-school age kids and both parents work to get to that income then daycare will chew up a lot of the rest.

There are options - live a long way from where you work, share accommodation (not really a great or practical option for folks with kids), live in a few of the absurdly high crime areas or cram a family into a 1 bedroom apartment. Or move away to somewhere with a lower cost of living but will also likely pay less.
 
2013-12-09 12:00:27 PM
Depends on where you live. For a lot of the country it is rich. Here, not so much.
 
2013-12-09 12:01:04 PM
$100K is a lot of money in my hometown, where the median home price is $75K, however $100K is not a lot of money where I currently live, where the median home price is $800K.  It is very much relative.  And yes, a simplistic solution would be to move back to my hometown, however if I would be lucky to earn $35K there, assuming I could find work.
 
2013-12-09 12:01:23 PM
If nothing else, this thread should provide a good forum for people to offhandedly provide hamfisted clues as to how much money they make.

These are almost as entertaining as "Let Me Tell You About My Lack of Debt" threads, and slightly more entertaining than "Let Me Tell You About My Wonderful Mortgage" threads.
 
2013-12-09 12:02:02 PM

TNel: A single person or a family of 2 making 100k a year should be labeled as "rich".  I couldn't imagine what I would do if my family of 5 made 100k combined, I would have no money worries.  At 100k a year that would mean you bring home almost 3k every 2 weeks, so about 6k per month of take home money.  Jesus you have to be living well outside of your means if you can't live off of that kind of money.


100k doesn't go very far these days.  I'm not sure that is even what used to be called "middle class" any more.  In any case I can't scrape by on anything under $150k a year.
 
2013-12-09 12:02:20 PM

MugzyBrown: TNel: A single person or a family of 2 making 100k a year should be labeled as "rich".  I couldn't imagine what I would do if my family of 5 made 100k combined, I would have no money worries.  At 100k a year that would mean you bring home almost 3k every 2 weeks, so about 6k per month of take home money.  Jesus you have to be living well outside of your means if you can't live off of that kind of money.

I have a family of 3 with a 1,500 sqft house and my wife and I combined make about $100k per year.

We're nowhere near rich and it will be a huge struggle if we decide to have a 2nd kid.


My partner and I have 2 kids each (she has full custody and I have 50% which seems like it would be cheaper but I pay 1k a month in child support).

We are not strapped for cash and I realize that we are luckier than most but even our 200k combined income doesn't make us "rich" by any stretch of the imagination. I have lived at much lower income levels and it is nice knowing how bills will get paid and being able to do some fun stuff with the kids (this year we are hoping to get 10 ski days in) but rich? No.
 
2013-12-09 12:05:13 PM
100k  is rich.  If my income tripled I don't know what I'd even do with it, but I'm sure it wouldn't be moving to the most expensive neighborhood and buying a Lexus.  Which is the kind of dumb shiat you're doing if you make 100k and complain about scraping by.  I probably would vacation in Europe every year tho while saving 10x as much for retirement.
 
2013-12-09 12:05:39 PM
we get by on just over 100K/yr, except we screwed up and cosigned a car loan for her stupid son and will be paying for the damn thing for six years and he wrecked a fender, texting while driving, and just blew the motor and now needs to use mommy's car every stinking day.
 
2013-12-09 12:07:18 PM

sigdiamond2000: If nothing else, this thread should provide a good forum for people to offhandedly provide hamfisted clues as to how much money they make.

These are almost as entertaining as "Let Me Tell You About My Lack of Debt" threads, and slightly more entertaining than "Let Me Tell You About My Wonderful Mortgage" threads.


I was brought up that it's rude to talk about income. The result of that is that I grew up around people who wouldn't name an exact figure for income but didn't mind mentioning the new $40,000 boat or $250k house they bought. I guess the habit stuck with me. The only reason I brought it up at all is that it's a personal anecdote that's relevant to the subject at hand.

And no, I don't think your comment was about me specifically, but of the shoe fits...
 
2013-12-09 12:07:25 PM

jst3p: (this year we are hoping to get 10 ski days in)


High peaks, lofty prices: Skiing increasingly pricing out middle class
 http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/high-peaks-lofty-prices-skiing-increa sin gly-pricing-out-middle-class-2D11619010
 
2013-12-09 12:08:53 PM
Hiro Nakamura:
Also, submitter, I like the idea of nationalized health insurance. Whaddaya think of that!?

Well, seeing as how one of the definitions of "rich" is the financial security of knowing that a mishap (medical or otherwise) will devastate your holdings, nationalized health insurance would do a lot to make Subby's thesis correct.
 
2013-12-09 12:09:17 PM
I make about ~$170K/year which is great for me because I'm single, have no kids and live in Roanoke, VA. A buddy of mine makes >$200K/year but has 2 kids, a house, pays $2,000/month in loans and lives in Chapel Hill, NC. I would say wealth is a relative term depending upon where you live.
However, neither of us are "rich" because if we stopped working, we're living on the street. You can only make so much money with your own two hands.
 
2013-12-09 12:11:00 PM

DarnoKonrad: 100k  is rich.  If my income tripled I don't know what I'd even do with it, but I'm sure it wouldn't be moving to the most expensive neighborhood and buying a Lexus.  Which is the kind of dumb shiat you're doing if you make 100k and complain about scraping by.  I probably would vacation in Europe every year tho while saving 10x as much for retirement.


Almost 20% of that goes to federal and state income taxes.
12k a year to the ex-wife
Health insurance
401k ("experts" tell us we should be putting 10-15% away for retirement, I am up to 4%)
Mortgage
Car payment (I could save a little here, but a 2007 Santa Fe isn't extravagant)
I don't have student loans but most people making six figures do.

Not that I am complaining but going from ~65k to 80k you lose a lot of income tax deductions and it feels like every raise I got was offset by this.


After being at this income level for awhile I might feel rich, but the first couple years aren't much different from when I was making 60k. Slightly nicer house and car and getting to say "yes" to the kids more often about taking them places.

It seems like a lot, until you get there.
 
2013-12-09 12:12:34 PM

Name_Omitted: Hiro Nakamura:
Also, submitter, I like the idea of nationalized health insurance. Whaddaya think of that!?

Well, seeing as how one of the definitions of "rich" is the financial security of knowing that a mishap (medical or otherwise) will devastate your holdings, nationalized health insurance would do a lot to make Subby's thesis correct.


What I was trying to say is that I wouldn't mind paying a little bit more in taxes to cover others. But I knew as soon as I said it that way someone would make a "hurrdurr send a check to the IRS" comment.
 
2013-12-09 12:13:08 PM

colon_pow: we get by on just over 100K/yr, except we screwed up and cosigned a car loan for her stupid son and will be paying for the damn thing for six years and he wrecked a fender, texting while driving, and just blew the motor and now needs to use mommy's car every stinking day.



Sounds like an excellent opportunity to explain the benefits of bootstraps.
 
2013-12-09 12:13:42 PM

12349876: jst3p: (this year we are hoping to get 10 ski days in)

High peaks, lofty prices: Skiing increasingly pricing out middle class
 http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/high-peaks-lofty-prices-skiing-increa sin gly-pricing-out-middle-class-2D11619010


My girlfriend is amazing about finding deals.

It helps that Colorado has programs that allow 5th and 6th graders to ski 3 or 4 days at almost every resort on the cheap (free for 5th graders and $100 for sixth graders,) so that helps with the lift prices for 2 of ours. We are going to A-basin on the 20th, kids ski free and we have 2 for one adult lift coupon.

It takes some planing but it can be done without breaking the bank. If you show up rent there and pay full price it is far more expensive.
 
2013-12-09 12:15:43 PM
Family of four and we make a bit over that with our incomes combined. Daycare, student Loans and healthcare are what kill us and keep us from feeling really financially secure.

We're not eating out of the dumpster by any means but we're crammed into a 2 bedroom 1 bath house, drive very used cars and haven't taken what anyone would consider a real vacation since our honeymoon.

/I know I know, your heart bleeds for us
 
2013-12-09 12:16:00 PM
I personally think that someone making 20-30% more than me should be considered rich.  And that will be my answer after I get a promotion/raise/job change and get to that pay rate, 20-30% more is rich.
 
2013-12-09 12:17:25 PM

Saiga410: I personally think that someone making 20-30% more than me should be considered rich.  And that will be my answer after I get a promotion/raise/job change and get to that pay rate, 20-30% more is rich.


This is valid. And those who make half of what I do should just work harder.
 
2013-12-09 12:17:59 PM
Is that pre or post tax?  Benefits included?
 
2013-12-09 12:20:16 PM

jst3p: Saiga410: I personally think that someone making 20-30% more than me should be considered rich.  And that will be my answer after I get a promotion/raise/job change and get to that pay rate, 20-30% more is rich.

This is valid. And those who make half of what I do should just work harder.


True enough.
 
2013-12-09 12:25:06 PM
$100k a year? HOLY farkING shiat every single problem my family of 5 has would instantly dissapear if we were pulling in 100k a year.  farking 50k a year would do it, 100k would be like mana from heaven!  100k?  Oh my farking god we might actually take a vacation, our first in 6 years.  shiat I would blow a rabid badger for 100k a year.


rtaylor92: Family of four and we make a bit over that with our incomes combined. Daycare, student Loans and healthcare are what kill us and keep us from feeling really financially secure.

We're not eating out of the dumpster by any means but we're crammed into a 2 bedroom 1 bath house, drive very used cars and haven't taken what anyone would consider a real vacation since our honeymoon.

/I know I know, your heart bleeds for us


How the fark are you not swimming in Krystal and taking monthly trips to Disney world with that kind of money and only 3 kids?  Get your wife off that Faberge egg habit dude and join the high society.
 
2013-12-09 12:25:34 PM
My parents never told me (I still don't know exactly) how much money my dad makes.  I do know it's somewhere in the 150,000-300,000 range.  I know my family has always been incredibly frugal, with cheap cars, a mid six figure house instead of seven figures, store brand clothes (and only new ones when they wear out), etc.

I also know, that to put my brother and I through high school (we went to a private one after my public school had a shooting), college, and my grad school (they paid for part, loans for the rest), they were saving up for virtually my entire life, and afterwards the fund was pretty much tapped out.  I know that our insurance (we had a really nice plan, admittedly) was something like 15-20k per year.  I know my family lost a lot when the market imploded (thanks assholes who deregulated, by the way).  We also lived in MD, near DC, and it's got a high cost of living.

I've asked, and while my parents still don't tell me what they make, they don't think my dad will be able to retire in the near future and have them remain financially secure, which is probably my benchmark for being rich - if you can live off your investments (at at least a middle class standard of living) without having to work at all.  It's a function of how much money you HAVE, not how much you make, and how much money you have is largely determined by who and what you have to support.

So I think it matters a lot the circumstances.  Probably my Dad would have been rich if he lived alone.  But covering our school, and our family's health care, and all the other BS, my parents were at best well-off middle class (an endangered species now).

A person making 100k can certainly become rich, living alone (or maybe married), if they live frugally and save until they have a large nest egg of investments.  I doubt they can with kids, no matter how frugal they are.
 
2013-12-09 12:25:54 PM

TNel: A single person or a family of 2 making 100k a year should be labeled as "rich".  I couldn't imagine what I would do if my family of 5 made 100k combined, I would have no money worries.  At 100k a year that would mean you bring home almost 3k every 2 weeks, so about 6k per month of take home money.  Jesus you have to be living well outside of your means if you can't live off of that kind of money.



In many (most?) regions of the country a family of 2 (married, no kids) with gross income of 100k (assuming they work for a decent company with decent benefits) can have take home pay of less than (and possibly much less than) that unless they are doing things VERY VERY WRONG.
 
2013-12-09 12:26:12 PM

skullkrusher: DarnoKonrad: 100k  is rich.  If my income tripled I don't know what I'd even do with it, but I'm sure it wouldn't be moving to the most expensive neighborhood and buying a Lexus.  Which is the kind of dumb shiat you're doing if you make 100k and complain about scraping by.  I probably would vacation in Europe every year tho while saving 10x as much for retirement.

$100k and traveling to Europe each year?


If you're single, without children, living in an inexpensive area of the country, sure.

If you're married with child(ren) living near a east/west coast city, good luck.
 
2013-12-09 12:26:16 PM
"In this country, you don't get anywhere without working hard," said James Lott, 28, a pharmacist in Renton, Wash., who adds to his six-figure salary by day-trading stocks. The son of Nigerian immigrants, Lott says he was able to get ahead by earning an advanced pharmacy degree. He makes nearly $200,000 a year.

As an investor, this guy has only known a bull market.  When the bears return, he's not going to be adding much to that salary.  I'm reminded of back in 1999 when all of my 24-year old friends were lulled into thinking that they were genius stock pickers.
 
2013-12-09 12:27:37 PM
It is easy to live off of $100k.

But rich?

Oh. Hell. No.


\Over $100k
 
2013-12-09 12:28:25 PM

TNel: A single person or a family of 2 making 100k a year should be labeled as "rich".  I couldn't imagine what I would do if my family of 5 made 100k combined, I would have no money worries.  At 100k a year that would mean you bring home almost 3k every 2 weeks, so about 6k per month of take home money.  Jesus you have to be living well outside of your means if you can't live off of that kind of money.


All depends on where you live...
 
2013-12-09 12:30:05 PM

TNel: A single person or a family of 2 making 100k a year should be labeled as "rich".  I couldn't imagine what I would do if my family of 5 made 100k combined, I would have no money worries.  At 100k a year that would mean you bring home almost 3k every 2 weeks, so about 6k per month of take home money.  Jesus you have to be living well outside of your means if you can't live off of that kind of money.


Actually, about $2000 every 2 weeks, and that's only if you have nothing else coming out of your checks.  It sure as hell beats 35k, but it's not rich beyond your wildest dreams.  The majority of people out there are between 20k and 40k, I think.

We spend approximately $2500 a month on bills and normal expenses (food, gas), in a suburb of Detroit, and we're lower than the national average on cost of living.  Family of 6.  Rent is $1500/mo, electricity, water, heat, internet, etc, food, gas for the other 1k .. SO, at 100k, I see about $1500/mo that is not automatically allocated, and by the end of the month, usually able to put 500-800 into savings.  It's not quite ideal, but it's not bad.  It's certainly not rich.  Draining almost our entire savings account to purchase a used Prius a couple of months ago rather hurt, but it's not the same kind of hurt that we would've experienced if we were completely broke and our existing vehicle had died.

Yes, we do spend a fair amount on unnecessary things (eating out, entertainment, etc), but 100k doesn't automatically make you rich enough to be exceptionally comfortable on money.
 
2013-12-09 12:32:43 PM

MugzyBrown: TNel: A single person or a family of 2 making 100k a year should be labeled as "rich".  I couldn't imagine what I would do if my family of 5 made 100k combined, I would have no money worries.  At 100k a year that would mean you bring home almost 3k every 2 weeks, so about 6k per month of take home money.  Jesus you have to be living well outside of your means if you can't live off of that kind of money.

I have a family of 3 with a 1,500 sqft house and my wife and I combined make about $100k per year.

We're nowhere near rich and it will be a huge struggle if we decide to have a 2nd kid.


It's almost like a fixed income figure doesn't really matter when regional standards of living and wages differ greatly, Ric Romero reports.
 
2013-12-09 12:36:04 PM
None of this bullsh*t labeling of subjective terms changes the fact that real wages have declined steadily for the majority of American workers, and real suffering is the result. But the assholes who serve corporate interests will keep trying to divide us along every line imaginable.

/fair enough, as we're apparently more than happy to be divided and conquered
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report