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

[DopeyDame]

As you stated, that's your definition of wealthy. From my POV, if you never have to worry about your next meal and you have a home, that makes you solidly middle class. Not wealthy. Wealthy is rich, to me. Wealthy, to me, is someone who never has to worry about ANY expense they have to make or juggle the priorities about getting one thing over another.

Your definition of wealthy seems to be that you can just manage to eat and not get exposed to the elements at night when you lay your head down to sleep. That's just "makin' it" to me.

No one is right or wrong. I guess, with threads like these, before people vote, we should agree on some standard definition of wealthy.

Fair enough. Defining terms is always an important first step. With your definition, I suspect it's only the top few hundred people on the planet who are "wealthy". Even someone who makes a million dollars a year - or even 10 million a year - surely has things they can't get without some prioritization and juggling. Surely it would be more convenient for the millionaire next door to have a private chartered jet take him to his retreat in Davos rather than having to fly international first class with the "merely upper middle class", but he probably can't afford to do that and also take that safari to Africa and go scuba diving in the Great Barrier Reef. So he has to prioritize and juggle.
But I can't imagine many people wouldn't consider that person to be "wealthy" but I might be wrong.

Clearly if we aren't trying to define the same phenomenon we aren't going to agree on who falls into that category.

ETA: I will freely admit that part of my visceral reaction to this thread is because I'm reading it while also reading the HONY Pakistan series about the indentured servitude in the Brick Kilns. These people - and their children - have become slaves over lack of a few thousand dollars. Money that most on this thread could easily come up with if really needed. It's just such a striking juxtaposition that it is really making my head swim and my heart hurt.

 

[smiths02]

that's not a true indication either though. Would you consider Donald Trump or the Kardashians wealthy? Believe me, Donald has quite a bit of debt.

Debt free is not an indication of wealth. In fact, I find (in my small circles) only the middle class folks get on this debt free bandwagon. Not that it's some thing bad. as some one else said 'rich" is when your money, makes money for you. The very wealthy people I know "work" at making their money grow. they could lose their jobs and not a darn thing would happen to them and yes they have mega mortgages. My sister did it after she retired from the police department. she turned her first love of interior design into a "theater landscape" business. She has debt,primarily from NYC real estate and a huge mortgage on her west point ny home but her investments give her a positive net worth.

Like I said, the only folks I know who make being "debt free" their primary goal is those who are in the middle class.

Is Donald Trump in a lot of personal debt, though? Or is it business debt that he can bankrupt away?
I don't think you have to be "debt free," but a balance of your debts versus your assets. If that balance is still negative or close to zero, you aren't wealthy, in my eyes.

 

[eliza61]

Is Donald Trump in a lot of personal debt, though? Or is it business debt that he can bankrupt away?
I don't think you have to be "debt free," but a balance of your debts versus your assets. If that balance is still negative or close to zero, you aren't wealthy, in my eyes.

Smith, that's exactly what I was trying to say. lol, I always seem to make things a lot longer than necessary.

that's what I meant by the wealthy people I know focus on increasing their net worth and not "becoming debt free". meaning their assets far exceed their debts but they are by no means debt free.

 

[Bec3b1g]

I don't understand who else we would compare things to? There are no people on other planets. And as I said, even if you limit your comparison to people in the US (not sure why you would do that, but ok...), even then, someone who can easily meet all of their needs every day is wealthy compared to the majority of people in the country.

I think most would agree with you that 100k is wealthy compared to everyone in the world.

 

[smiths02]

My DH and I have a comfortable income combined, but we *just* started making that again while recovering from some of the economic cutbacks AND having twins (bad timing).
We are very blessed, but I wouldn't say wealthy because we haven't really accumulated money, yet. (Student loans plus the we bought a house in 2003 which was a terrible time to buy our first home) We are in our mid-30s, so there is still time.
I grew up poor, though, and going on vacation, having two cars, a giant tv, and a really nice house would have looked filthy rich to me about 20 years ago.

 

[Christine]

Fair enough. Defining terms is always an important first step. With your definition, I suspect it's only the top few hundred people on the planet who are "wealthy". Even someone who makes a million dollars a year - or even 10 million a year - surely has things they can't get without some prioritization and juggling. Surely it would be more convenient for the millionaire next door to have a private chartered jet take him to his retreat in Davos rather than having to fly international first class with the "merely upper middle class", but he probably can't afford to do that and also take that safari to Africa and go scuba diving in the Great Barrier Reef. So he has to prioritize and juggle.
But I can't imagine many people wouldn't consider that person to be "wealthy" but I might be wrong.

Clearly if we aren't trying to define the same phenomenon we aren't going to agree on who falls into that category.

I guess when I was discussing prioritization and juggling, it was more about "quasi-necessities." For instance, I make over $100K; however, I live in a modest, older home outside a city. Cost of living is high. Based on my expenses (housing being the worst due to where I live), I'm not wealthy. In fact, I need new windows in my home. They are starting to leak and the seals are busted. But last year I had to get a new roof which set me back over $8000.00. The windows will have to wait and I will have to deal with the leaks.

I also haven't been on any vacation since 2012 because I was saving for my roof as well as a hefty car repair in 2013. So, I have to make these sorts of choices all the time. I'm very comfortable, but I can't do the things that I think wealthy people do. It's not like I *have* to choose Disney World because Hawaii more expensive. That's a bit of a "wealth" thing, right there. Choosing to buy a private plan over a very expensive car is a wealth issue to me also.
But everyone's bar will be different.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Nope. That's not it at all. It's because I have some perspective and compassion. Just because you're not "THE WEALTHIEST" of people on the planet doesn't mean that you aren't wealthy. Is Tom Brady the only "athletic" person on the planet? Of course not. Just because you're not at the tippy-tippy top of some mountain doesn't mean that you aren't in the "wealthy" category.

And frankly, the entitlement and lack of perspective on this thread is making my physically ill.

From my point of view, if you are richer than 0.1% of the people on the planet, you're wealthy. (And yes, that's where people who make $100K a year fall)
If you have never had to worry about where your next meal will come from or if you have a roof over your head or if you will have the means to stay healthy, you're wealthy. Being able to buy a 4.8 million dollar car (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/the-top-ten-most-expensive-cars-in-the-world/3/) may put you in a different category than someone who can buy a current year Honda, but the person with a Honda is still wealthy compared to virtually every other person on the planet, and most other people in the country.

Your definition of "wealthy" doesn't match someone else's. No need to become "physically ill" over something so subjective.

 

[mombrontrent]

No way, not here! We're just over that between the 2 of us. Where we are, I'd consider us on the extreme low end of middle class.

People who are on the extreme low end of middle class don't have "too many Disney trips to count"

 

[DopeyDame]

Your definition of "wealthy" doesn't match someone else's. No need to become "physically ill" over something so subjective.

This was the ETA that I added (probably after you read my post):
ETA: I will freely admit that part of my visceral reaction to this thread is because I'm reading it while also reading the HONY Pakistan series about the indentured servitude in the Brick Kilns. These people - and their children - have become slaves over lack of a few thousand dollars. Money that most on this thread could easily come up with if really needed. It's just such a striking juxtaposition that it is really making my head swim and my heart hurt.

 

[Christine]

ETA: I will freely admit that part of my visceral reaction to this thread is because I'm reading it while also reading the HONY Pakistan series about the indentured servitude in the Brick Kilns. These people - and their children - have become slaves over lack of a few thousand dollars. Money that most on this thread could easily come up with if really needed. It's just such a striking juxtaposition that it is really making my head swim and my heart hurt.

Understood! With that particular perspective, yes, I am super wealthy! When I answered this poll, I wasn't using that type of comparison.

 

[morgan98]

No way, not here! We're just over that between the 2 of us. Where we are, I'd consider us on the extreme low end of middle class.

I am not picking on you, but saying the low end of middle class is not possible by the government definition of middle class when you make $100k a year. The number of vacations you are taking puts you well ahead of the low end of middle class.

Again, I am not trying to be judgmental, I just think people have different ideas of what it means to be middle class.

 

[alicat8]

People who are on the extreme low end of middle class don't have "too many Disney trips to count"

The majority of those trips are from my childhood (you know, like when your parents pay...) and my 20s when I had zero mortgage or post-grad debt and was paying $300 a month for rent while crammed into apartments with 4 other people driving a 10 year old car. Now, I live in a tiny, old house compared to most of my state, wear old old navy clothes, and still have 10 year old cars. I go on zero other vacations unless my inlaws are feeling generous. And I stay at value ...thanks for your concern though.

 

[mjkacmom]

There have been a lot of articles on the decline of the middle class here.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/20..._rapid_growth_of_income_inequality_in_nj.html

 

[BostonJP]

Making $100k means not worrying about your next few bill payments. Being wealthy means not worrying about money for the rest of your life. I think there's a huge difference between the middle class enjoying the sparse luxury (like an annual vacation) and living lavishly, and $100,000 just barely allows for the former.

 

[tvguy]

I'm sure if the question was--is 100k wealthy compared to everyone in the world, answers would have been different.

No kidding. Our server on our cruise had been on ships for 7 years, earning about $30,000 a year. He planned to work 3 more years and retire at age 32, because the money he had earned and saved was enough to retire in his native Indonesia.

 

[FLCyndi]

Middle Class.

 

[Bec3b1g]

that's not a true indication either though. Would you consider Donald Trump or the Kardashians wealthy? Believe me, Donald has quite a bit of debt.

Debt free is not an indication of wealth. In fact, I find (in my small circles) only the middle class folks make being debt free their primary goal. Not that, that is some thing bad, it's not at all.

as some one else said 'rich" is when your money, makes money for you. The very wealthy people I know "work" at making their money grow. they could lose their jobs and not a darn thing would happen to them and yes they have mega mortgages. My sister did it after she retired from the NYC police department. she turned her first love of interior design into a "theater landscape" business. She has debt, primarily from NYC real estate and a huge mortgage on her west point ny home but her investments give her a positive net worth.

Like I said, the only folks I know who make being "debt free" their primary goal is those who are in the middle class.

Now don't get me wrong she is very aware of how much debt she has and how it's working for her, no she's not out there buying mercedes and lear jets.

Donald Trump has a net worth of 4+ billion. This number takes into account his liabilities. I'd say he's definitely wealthy

Not sure about the Kardashians since I don't care for them, but I'd guess they are wealthy too.

Leveraging debt against assets isn't necessarily a bad thing and it does help to build "wealth" (I'm a little scared to use that term on this thread). We are currently building a new facility thanks to the sba that will double our production and increase our sales. We could never fund a commercial building out of pocket.

 

[EMAW_KSU]

Income does not equal wealth.

 

[alicat8]

I am not picking on you, but saying the low end of middle class is not possible by the government definition of middle class when you make $100k a year. The number of vacations you are taking puts you well ahead of the low end of middle class.

Again, I am not trying to be judgmental, I just think people have different ideas of what it means to be middle class.

People also seem to have no concept of the fact that your area has a HUGE impact on what that dollar amount actually means. Yeah, I might make more than a lot of people in the country, but I don't get the same for it as other people can get. It's close to the minimum around here for being able to own a home and take a vacation. I've seen House Hunters! I've seen the mcmansions people can buy in Texas and in the south for the same amount of $ I spent on my 1100 sq ft 1970s condo. I'd move, but I know my salary would be cut in half too, so what's the point?

I know I'm not even close to poor, but I also know we have to do a lot of calculating and scrimping (especially of heat in the winter, booooo) to be able to pay our bills every month.

 

[Christine]

People also seem to have no concept of the fact that your area has a HUGE impact on what that dollar amount actually means. Yeah, I might make more than a lot of people in the country, but I don't get the same for it as other people can get. It's close to the minimum around here for being able to own a home and take a vacation. I've seen House Hunters! I've seen the mcmansions people can buy in Texas and in the south for the same amount of $ I spent on my 1100 sq ft 1970s condo. I'd move, but I know my salary would be cut in half too, so what's the point?

I know I'm not even close to poor, but I also know we have to do a lot of calculating and scrimping (especially of heat in the winter, booooo) to be able to pay our bills every month.

It's not only about housing. There are many caps for tax credits that do not take into account the cost of living. I can't remember the specific levels now, but I rarely EVER got the child care tax credit due to the limit on it; however, someone who was living in Texas with lower income, a bigger house, cheaper daycare etc, (i.e., getting more for their dollar) would always get the credit. I was always upset that they would not put in a CoLA factor on some of these cutoffs. I was never able to claim the credits for higher education too, and they were significant. They are all based on income levels and if you hit that, they don't care where you live, so you just lose. Often, people in high CoLA areas do worse even though the income levels may sound enviable to others.