Do you consider a family that makes >$100,000 wealthy?

[minniecarousel]

$100,000 is not wealthy in the SF Bay Area. Depending on where you want to live, you may not even be able to afford to own a home. Where you can afford to live may not be a safe area.

 

[morgan98]

I was going to write this lengthy response on my thoughts, but you pretty much recapped them, so thank you for saving me the keystrokes. I believe that our concept of wealth has changed a lot over the years, and we do things now that during the 60's only the wealthy did. We are a very wasteful society, and that tends to cost money. And, we don't live in a bubble. There are people in the US as well as the rest of the world who do not have nearly the things and luxuries we do. Our children, for the most part, aren't having to leave school when they are still kids to help the family survive, and the duration of "kid" years are becoming longer and longer, so that they are not expected to fend for themselves when they are 18, like so many used to have to - that didn't have the option to continue their education until their mid-20's/early 30's that I am seeing now.

I remember looking forward to Christmas, beginning of school, my birthday, because that is when I would get new clothes, and some gift that I had been drooling over (well, not literally, please). Now, we get things when we want to, and young people that have jobs buy whatever latest gaming system, or buy new cars instead of dealing with a used car because they aren't balancing family responsibilities, or even their own home. I see it time and again.

In the "olden" days, people saved and bought frugally. When my parents got our house back in '65, we had hand-me-down furniture for years. They added a dining room a few years after moving in, and I remember my mom painting the cement floor green, and using crepe paper in twists for "curtains" until they saved enough for furniture and drapes. They didn't open a credit card account and start buying things like people do today. Our vacations consisted of visiting family or tent camping. And we also had one television for years. Dad got precedence, and mom, then us kids if our parents weren't watching something. Today, everyone has their own device. I've seen 5 year olds playing on their smart phones, or ipads, etc.

Okay, I'm getting way off track ... sorry about that.

Yes, and you added to my thoughts as well. Or things like manicures and pedicures for mom and teenage daughters. All of these things cost substantial money when you really think about them, I do not think they are middle class at all. Birthday parties for friends, if you had one, were games at home not a huge event at a venue. I am in no way saying these things are bad, but we are fooling ourselves if we think these items are part of a middle class existence.

 

[rigs32]

New York state's median family income here is over $87,000, so $100,000 is middle class.

NYC and downstate really bring that average up. In Rochester, the median family income is just over 30k and for the county as a whole, it's about 57k.

 

[mjkacmom]

NYC and downstate really bring that average up. In Rochester, the median family income is just over 30k and for the county as a whole, it's about 57k.

Weird, that was my post quoted, but I said my state, in the NYC metro area (which is NJ). Most places in NJ are pretty expensive.

 

[AuntieKels]

What would you think "Middle Class" is in your area?

I would say $150,000+ is middle class near me.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

What would you think "Middle Class" is in your area?

I would say $150,000+ is middle class near me.

Here, $60,000-250,000.

Much less would be a real struggle. Much more & pretty much everyone is going to have vacation homes & numerous other luxuries.

 

[tvguy]

$100,000 is not wealthy in the SF Bay Area. Depending on where you want to live, you may not even be able to afford to own a home. Where you can afford to live may not be a safe area.

Which is why so many people who work in San Francisco, don't live there. You go 45 miles away to places like Suisun City you can still get a 1700 square foot 3 bedroom 2 bath house for $300,000 which is less than the average priced home in California at $444,000. Or Sacramento. My favorit is HP, they have a big cluster of employees in Roseville that HP flys in to work in a company jet everyday.

 

[FINFAN]

not wealthy with the 2 kids if college is the plan for them. 100,000 *generally* has a family of 4 unable to save enough to pay for college for both in full, but puts them in a bracket where they will not receive financial aid that does not require repayment. Around me, (Chicago burbs) that amount is getting by, probably check to check. If college isn't in the plan, then that amount while not wealthy, would at least allow decent retirement savings to happen. I think 400,000+ a year starts the lower end of wealthy in *new money* status.

 

[barkley]

Yes, and you added to my thoughts as well. Or things like manicures and pedicures for mom and teenage daughters. All of these things cost substantial money when you really think about them, I do not think they are middle class at all. Birthday parties for friends, if you had one, were games at home not a huge event at a venue. I am in no way saying these things are bad, but we are fooling ourselves if we think these items are part of a middle class existence.

along the same lines-fully funding (or in large part) kid's college. growing up despite knowing some kids from what I viewed (then and now) as coming from solid upper middle class earning families it still wasn't the norm for their parents to fully fund their college expenses, AND absolutely wasn't heard of among the 'middle class'. a parent might help out w/the student's expenses by contributing a stipend towards the cost (or mom bought extra groceries/made frozen meals to send home to their apartment when they came home to visit once or twice a month) but the only folks we knew that had their educations paid in full by family were the uber wealthy or those w/inheritances or trust funds from passed on family members. it was the norm vs. the exception that students were working jobs while attending school.

so much of what people take for granted as being the 'norm' in day to day life are things that I view as luxuries. for us anything beyond housing/food/utilities/insurance-home, health/ life and car/basic clothing/basic transportation is all just icing on the cake. sure, we opt for some of that icing but if we had to do without it I wouldn't see it as a loss of anything we need.

 

[mjkacmom]

along the same lines-fully funding (or in large part) kid's college. growing up despite knowing some kids from what I viewed (then and now) as coming from solid upper middle class earning families it still wasn't the norm for their parents to fully fund their college expenses, AND absolutely wasn't heard of among the 'middle class'. a parent might help out w/the student's expenses by contributing a stipend towards the cost (or mom bought extra groceries/made frozen meals to send home to their apartment when they came home to visit once or twice a month) but the only folks we knew that had their educations paid in full by family were the uber wealthy or those w/inheritances or trust funds from passed on family members. it was the norm vs. the exception that students were working jobs while attending school.

so much of what people take for granted as being the 'norm' in day to day life are things that I view as luxuries. for us anything beyond housing/food/utilities/insurance-home, health/ life and car/basic clothing/basic transportation is all just icing on the cake. sure, we opt for some of that icing but if we had to do without it I wouldn't see it as a loss of anything we need.

My parents paid for my education, and my sister's. His salary was six figures even back then. But, they always lived within their means. When they bought their forever home, they had one old car (mom drove him it and from the bus stop into Manhattan), and they slowly did improvements over the next few decades. I just got my mom her first smartphone, she's 71.

 

[Wendy31]

No, I don't think $100,000 is wealthy at all. I think, in just about every area of the United States, $100K is going to be pretty solidly middle class - even in the South where I am. $100K might go further in some places than others, but it's still not a true "wealthy" income.

However, I also agree that what we have determined is "needed" for middle-class living has changed over the years, & our lifestyles make middle-class living more expensive - so that $100K in 2015 doesn't do as much for us as it would have in 1950.

Because we (& our kids) have to have phones & TVs & video game systems & parties & name brand shoes & clothes & whatever - and that just maintains our middle class status. If we don't have all that stuff (or don't have the means to get it), then we don't really consider ourselves middle class, if that makes sense.

Financial wealth comes from assets, not income, IMO, and it would be very difficult to leverage $100,000 per year enough to generate assets while also paying for the normal costs of living.

I agree w/ this. At $100K, you might live "comfortably" & not have to scrimp & save as much, but you still don't have enough to really build any assets.

I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but I do believe it would take more than $100k to break out of the top end of Middle Class - unless you've just amassed a great deal of assets & also have zero debt.

To me, "wealthy" is the point where you no longer have financial worries regarding the day to day stuff. Your basic necessities aren't even a concern, and neither are a few luxuries.

I paused before buying a $215 battery for my boat & decided "no" after considering adding a second battery. My cousin & her partner bought an $80,000 boat on a whim. That's the difference (IMO) between middle class & wealthy.

Exactly! W/ tip to get my hair done, it's nearly $200. I pay it, but I stress that's it too much to spend on my hair. If I were truly wealthy, it wouldn't bother me at all.

 

[tigercat]

Since we bring in about $39,000.00 US per year $100,000.00 US per year sounds like a lot of money. And we are supporting right now anyway 4 people. A month ago it was 5 people. We also have 3 young grandkids that are looked after here 3 to 4 days a week. It seems like we are getting farther and farther behind even when we try to keep things down.
tigercat

 

[Donnainnj]

I would go with most and say location has a lot to do with it. As someone said before where I am on Long Island NY, $100,000 for a family of four these days will not go far. Average house sells for about $ 300,000, We have the highest paid Police Force in the US, after 8 years a patrol man will be making over $100,000 base. Teachers start in the High 40's and will exceed 100 K in less than 10 years. We have an average of a7% state income tax, a 8 1/4 Sales tax and property taxes that will run on the average house of about $ 8,000 per year. Our electric rates at 21 cents per kilowatt-hour are the highest in the country thanks to funding the most expensive nuclear reactor never used. So even with a salary of $150 K, it would be a struggle. The one shinning possibility is that when you retire if you head to a lower cost region, you can sell your house buy a similar sized or larger for half the price, take your high priced area pension and go live like a king some where else.

As per bolding, I don't think so, just got back from Hawaii and these are the rates I found http://www.heco.com/portal/site/heco/menuitem.508576f78baa14340b4c0610c510b1ca/?vgnextoid=692e5e658e0fc010VgnVCM1000008119fea9RCRD&vgnextchannel=10629349798b4110VgnVCM1000005c011bacRCRD '

I was also told while there that part of the reason the prices are so high is because the electric company is required to purchase the power generated from windmills and such, but do not have the capacity to store it.

 

[BlovesC]

No, sadly.

 

[Jdbsfw]

It's laughable that anyone would think 100k is wealthy......The people that I know who are genuinely wealthy would laugh at what a 100k earner would consider a "luxury purchase"......Hint: your used Lexus or c class Mercedes ain't it.

 

[kirstenb1]

Here in central Va. probably puts you square in middle class.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I don't consider a family making a $100K (before OR after taxes) wealthy.

And what would you consider $15,000 a month to be? That's what a buddy of mine pays to his ex wife for alimony, until he retires.

Karma, justice..

 

[barkley]

No, I don't think $100,000 is wealthy at all. I think, in just about every area of the United States, $100K is going to be pretty solidly middle class - even in the South where I am. $100K might go further in some places than others, but it's still not a true "wealthy" income.

However, I also agree that what we have determined is "needed" for middle-class living has changed over the years, & our lifestyles make middle-class living more expensive - so that $100K in 2015 doesn't do as much for us as it would have in 1950.

Because we (& our kids) have to have phones & TVs & video game systems & parties & name brand shoes & clothes & whatever - and that just maintains our middle class status. If we don't have all that stuff (or don't have the means to get it), then we don't really consider ourselves middle class, if that makes sense.



I agree w/ this. At $100K, you might live "comfortably" & not have to scrimp & save as much, but you still don't have enough to really build any assets.



Exactly! W/ tip to get my hair done, it's nearly $200. I pay it, but I stress that's it too much to spend on my hair. If I were truly wealthy, it wouldn't bother me at all.

goodness-what you appear to know as a 'have to' just demonstrates how all of our opinions are tremendously shaped and influenced by the 'norms' of where we live.

where we currently live anything other than a moderate cost (as in at home, bowling/chuck e cheese...) birthday party is in no way the norm (honestly-past about age 10 or 12 birthday parties are considered babyish). beyond high school graduation parties it's the rare exception for anyone to have any kind of full blown party (I don't think any of dd's classmates did anything monumental for sweet 16 or such).

there may be some who feel some sort of self imposed mandate for brand name shoes and clothes and such but even w/the presence and influence of very wealthy students from other areas of the state/country who attend the high end/high cost private universities in our area there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming practice of purchasing these items.

as for electronics-yes, there is absolutely the population that has to have the highest end options, but there are also those that opt for less expensive options (and as far as gaming-opting for saving as much as 70% on the cost by doing on-line 'steam' versions vs. their stand alone game system counterparts).

and I have to say-$200 including tip for getting your hair done???? what does that include???? I can get a haircut, style AND a 50 minute deep tissue/sweedish or hot rock massage w/tip at one of our top ranked u.s. spas for about the same.

 

[Skippy918]

I consider 100k middle class or upper middle depending on location. It's a comfortable living. You have a budget but you aren't struggling to feed your family. and I would consider wealthy an income of at least $300k+ a year. If you live modestly, it would go far.

 

[Wendy31]

goodness-what you appear to know as a 'have to' just demonstrates how all of our opinions are tremendously shaped and influenced by the 'norms' of where we live.

where we currently live anything other than a moderate cost (as in at home, bowling/chuck e cheese...) birthday party is in no way the norm (honestly-past about age 10 or 12 birthday parties are considered babyish). beyond high school graduation parties it's the rare exception for anyone to have any kind of full blown party (I don't think any of dd's classmates did anything monumental for sweet 16 or such).

there may be some who feel some sort of self imposed mandate for brand name shoes and clothes and such but even w/the presence and influence of very wealthy students from other areas of the state/country who attend the high end/high cost private universities in our area there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming practice of purchasing these items.

as for electronics-yes, there is absolutely the population that has to have the highest end options, but there are also those that opt for less expensive options (and as far as gaming-opting for saving as much as 70% on the cost by doing on-line 'steam' versions vs. their stand alone game system counterparts).

and I have to say-$200 including tip for getting your hair done???? what does that include???? I can get a haircut, style AND a 50 minute deep tissue/sweedish or hot rock massage w/tip at one of our top ranked u.s. spas for about the same.

Sorry! I wasn't clear... I'm not saying *we* personally HAVE to have all that... I was saying that we as a society seem to think we have to have all that... I was agreeing w/ another poster that all "that" (whatever that is) has become a typical part of the middle class - where it wasn't decades ago.

We don't have the latest electronics, but we do have electronics - phones, video game systems, laptop, etc. We don't have a TV in every room of the house, but we do have more than one TV.

I don't have a designer handbag, but I know many, many other women in our circle who do & they're not wealthy - they're part of the same middle class that we are. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong w/ having a designer handbag. (I have my eye on a kicky little Kate Spade.) But I guess my money goes to my hair. LOL!

And the $200 includes the cut, color, style, & tip... it's pretty typical for this area. And, yes, I think it's expensive. Which is why I said, if I were wealthy, I wouldn't think a thing about it! LOL!