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

[mefordis]

To me wealthy means never having to actually work for a wage (doesn't matter if the person does or not). Wealthy means having unlimited resources. It doesn't matter what they drive, if they wear the same clothes every day and clip coupons. Wealth is what they have accumulated and is there if they ever want to use it. When I think wealthy I think Bill Gates.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

No. There are too many other variables associated with wealth beyond income level that must be considered as well.

 

[BostonJP]

And I agree with a PP that said they felt like they had more money when they made less. I thought I was rich when I first made 36k a year. LOL. I got a mani/pedi and car wash bi-weekly back then. I don't have the time or money to do either of those now.

This is funny and so true. I remember when I was 19 or 20, and got promoted to "Service Supervisor" at the local cineplex, at a wage of $8.25 an hour ($12 for overtime!). My first paycheck I took home over $400 and it was the greatest feeling ever.

That $400 went a lot farther than my paychecks today, BTW - car washes aren't in my budget now!

 

[sug78]

Nope.

 

[peimikes]

No. I live in Atlantic Canada on Prince Edward Island and 100K does not go very far. We have made well over that for more than 10 years and are middle class at best. We own our own home on about an 80 acre lot, but being almost 10 mins out of town only pay about $800 year in property taxes which helps. Being on an island come with so added cost. It's over $45 to take the bridge to get to the mainland and power rates are a little higher than neighboring Provinces for instance.

 

[Berger]

It depends on location and family size. For most locations, I would say no. If you are single then maybe but probably not living in a big city. A family of 5+ living in the mid Atlantic up to the north east, doubtful. You wouldn't be poor (by any stretch of the imagination) nor wealthy, living on $100,000.

 

[Pop Goes the Weasel]

This is a fascinating question. It's very subjective, and my answer changes as I think about it.

Lemme take stock. I have... indoor plumbing, a refrigerator, heat/ac., individually wrapped servings of applesauce in my cupboard, kiwi, mangos, lots of clothes. I own both a bike and an automobile. In the bigger context, I am fabulously wealthy.

Then again, with a family of 6 I worry about the rising cost of everything. Health care is suddenly a huge and growing segment of my income - now the greatest single cost. I would say 100k is a good middle class income in most parts of the US. Other variables to consider include insurance and health care costs. If self employed with a medium to large family, disposable income is greatly diminished once money funnels into health insurance, retirement, etc.

I think to most Americans, a 100k income affords some luxuries. This might be driving newer cars, owning a nice home, or taking the occasional family trip to Disney World.

 

[NobleAlyssum]

My guardians averaged about half of 100k throughout my childhood with a family of four. We were okay; some months were better than others. Double that amount? To me, classmates who had parents make that much were wealthy.

 

[RobbW]

It's definitely very subjective and dependent on circumstances and multiple variables. It also very much depends on who you are asking and who is answering the question. Ask someone who doesn't make anywhere near that amount and you may very likely get a "Heck, yeah, that's wealthy!" answer. Ask someone who makes that much or more and you quite likely will get a "Heck no!" answer! I, personally, do not know where the line is, but there is a financial border at which once your income crosses that point, you really don't need to worry about anything (e.g. where your next paycheck is coming from, how much something costs, eating out vs. cooking at home, spontaneous luxury trips to WDW vs. scrimping and saving for a few years, etc.). Once you reach THAT point, then I'd consider you wealthy!

The thing is, most people who have not reached that point financially have a tendency to spend up to, and quite often more than, their income. So, even if you take home a very decent income, it often doesn't *feel* like you're making that much because your dollars are often flying out the door just as quickly as they're coming in.

 

[tigercat]

After looking at my husbands pay cheque yes that is a LOT of money. He brings in about 1/3 of that amount.
tigercat

 

[pryncess527]

At 100K a year in CA, your take home pay (for a single person) is 67,632.01. That's 5,636.00 per month. As of May 2015, average apartment rent within 10 miles of San Francisco, CA is $3803. One bedroom apartments in San Francisco rent for $3213 a month on average and two bedroom apartment rents average $4385. So, if you're single, you can make it work, but if you add in a car payment, student loans, utility bills, etc........100K doesn't go too far.

And yet the median household income in San Fran is still only $77,000. So a person making only 100k still earns signficantly more than over half the families in San Fran.

That's what gets me about the high COL areas -- despite the high COL, the median incomes are still never above 100k. Not in NYC, LA, San Fran, Seattle, etc. Not even if I restrict NYC to just Manhattan, it's still only got a median income of $66k.

 

[mjkacmom]

In high COL areas, the poor tend to be POOR.

 

[katibosch]

Our family income (3 people, I'm the sole income earner) is about $45,000 and we're comfortable just living on that but we have basically no debt which helps a LOT. With $100,000 a year I would definitely consider us very wealthy.

 

[Lisaloo]

Not even close to my definition of wealthy.

 

[ottawagreg]

Absolutely $100K is wealthy. The poorest folks in America are wealthy, when compared to the people around the world. They have housing, food, medical benefits, and cable TV, probably even a cellphone. If one is fortunate enough to live in the USA, then they are wealthy. No question about that.

 

[Farps]

Not here in N.J.

 

[Jdbsfw]

Still no, not even close....

 

[waltdisneymom]

I don't think looking at averages put out by the government is relevant (I.e. When people say things like compared to the rest of Americans, etc). It seems like they would try to make as many people out to be as wealthy as possible to justify taxation on anyone who works at all. $100000 is two people working $50000/ year jobs. Hardly wealthy. I'd even say struggling if they have a mortgage and kids.

 

[CooperPrincesses]

I have to say average, if you take into account living in a large city suburb with multiple children. We can afford to live, but not live it up. Vacation takes planning and saving, college takes planning and saving. Bills are paid there is food to eat, but our cars are modest and so is our house, so no not wealthy at all.

Very fortunate though in so many ways.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

In high COL areas, the poor tend to be POOR.

It's also true that the benefits the poor receive are often ignored as "income" in many of these studies, so that can skew the average downward.