Ok can we stop saying $300k is "rich" in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not since just before the Great Depression has the income gap between rich and poor Americans been so vast. The top 1 percent of U.S. families has an income, on average, $1,153,293 a year — about 25 times the $45,567 earned on average by the rest of American families.

Those numbers are from a report, “Income Inequality in the U.S. by State, Metropolitan Area, and County,” by the Economic Policy Institute. EPI, a nonpartisan think tank, examined state-level tax data from 1917 through 2013 (the latest year available) to report the gap, the earnings and the trends in every state.

Overall, the top 1 percent of earners took home 20.1 percent of all income in the U.S. in 2013.

Virginia: $987,607 per year

Maryland: $1,024,110 per year

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/slideshows/what-the-richest-1-percent-earns-every-state/


******

The rich are getting richer and leaving us all behind in the dust and instead of doing something about THAT, we fight with each other.

You are still tich. it is the cost of living and how you spend your money that is the problem

Oops, *rich

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, you are lower middle class in DC. 300k looks rich to you because it's more than double your income, but it's not rich. Your perspective is skewed. People making 50k here are straight up poor. The posters harping that people making 50k are middle class are delusional. We have plenty of medical assistants in our clinic with hhi 50-60k. Their finances are miserable. Zero retirement, perpetual renters, and they work like dogs for their wages. They splurge now and then, probably so they don't go crazy. Does that sound middle class?

Yes. That's what slashing the social safety net and basically having a dog-eat-dog society does to the middle class. But that doesn't mean that income level isn't middle class. If you think their situations are bad (and I agree they are), take a look at those of the truly destitute.

You are insisting that you aren't rich based on your perception of what rich should be. But statistics say otherwise. The problem is that a middle income can no longer support a decent lifestyle...not that people are arguing that 5-10%-ers are rich.

-- $600-700K HHI, so this isn't about me envying your lot

My definition of middle class is based on lifestyle. If you can't have, as you say, a decent lifestyle on average income, you are poor. Employers have done a good job keeping wages flat while the price of everything has gone up, so that 50k, which bought you a middle class lifestyle decades ago, now buys a lower class lifestyle. It's the same for people making 300k in DC. Their income buys them an okay house, decent to good schools, and retirement savings. This sounds solidly middle class to me. It was middle class 40 years ago. I'm not sure why so many posters here have adjusted their standards and insist that what was clearly middle class is now rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, you are lower middle class in DC. 300k looks rich to you because it's more than double your income, but it's not rich. Your perspective is skewed. People making 50k here are straight up poor. The posters harping that people making 50k are middle class are delusional. We have plenty of medical assistants in our clinic with hhi 50-60k. Their finances are miserable. Zero retirement, perpetual renters, and they work like dogs for their wages. They splurge now and then, probably so they don't go crazy. Does that sound middle class?

Yes. That's what slashing the social safety net and basically having a dog-eat-dog society does to the middle class. But that doesn't mean that income level isn't middle class. If you think their situations are bad (and I agree they are), take a look at those of the truly destitute.

You are insisting that you aren't rich based on your perception of what rich should be. But statistics say otherwise. The problem is that a middle income can no longer support a decent lifestyle...not that people are arguing that 5-10%-ers are rich.

-- $600-700K HHI, so this isn't about me envying your lot

My definition of middle class is based on lifestyle. If you can't have, as you say, a decent lifestyle on average income, you are poor. Employers have done a good job keeping wages flat while the price of everything has gone up, so that 50k, which bought you a middle class lifestyle decades ago, now buys a lower class lifestyle. It's the same for people making 300k in DC. Their income buys them an okay house, decent to good schools, and retirement savings. This sounds solidly middle class to me. It was middle class 40 years ago. I'm not sure why so many posters here have adjusted their standards and insist that what was clearly middle class is now rich.

Probably because people now have a better and more comprehensive understanding of what poverty is and know that $300k is not middle class income no matter how many times you say it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

$300k in high COL areas is far from rich. You get all the negatives of actually being rich like high taxes. But none of the support of being poor like college financial aid for children. $250-$500k is an economic death zone. Sure you may get a better annual vacation or nicer car than someone making $50k, but the day to day quality of life is not that much different.

You either have a warped world view or have a lot more debts than we do. We make $300K and have one nine year old. We went on several international vacations and are hosting a cookout for 15 of DD's friends this weekend at the pool that we belong to for no reason at all other than we feel like it. I think our life is quite different than someone making 50K. Now, granted, we only need to pay for college for one kid, but we've been funding her 529 since her birth.

DP. Two extra kids is a big difference. More daycare costs, more food, clothing, and health costs, more college savings needed. So yeah, it's not warped, it's math.

But you chose to push out those three kids. You chose to sit your ass at home with them instead of earning income. You are still rich at $300k. Just because you cant have everything you want and you had a bunch of kids and you spend all your money doesnt mean you arent rich at $300k.

This is just dumb. 3 kids is not a bunch of kids, and where does it say she spends all her money on luxuries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've learned something interesting from all this fighting, which is that apparently the people most convinced they *aren't* rich are conservatives. Some have argued here that people who think they have more than enough on $200k are "social justice warriors." This helps me understand why our republican senators are currently throwing sick children under a bus just so rich people can get tax breaks.

Not the conclusion I will make. I don't know about your healthcare costs, but mine grew astronomically with obamacare (9% for premiums per year and new coinsurance that makes you hit your deductible fast, which I never had till this year).

Are you actually on an Obamacare exchange plan? If not, the growth in premiums and coinsurance is thanks to your employer and the costs of medical care, NOT obamacare. #factsareyourfriend.

Not pp, but I was on an Obamacare exchange plan (until I got a new job), and the premiums were ridiculous and getting more so. However, much of the increase in costs for employer plans is also attributable to Obamacare. In particular, the minimum requirements for plans, taxes for "Cadillac plans," etc. #factsreallyareyourfriend

Did you know that Obamacare caps insurer profitability? My company got rebate checks from the insurance company for thousands of dollars. We spend about $250k a year on health insurance.
Did you know that the Cadillac tax is 40% on every dollar over $10,200 for individuals and over $27,500 for family in 2018. Are we supposed to feel bad for people whose employers are paying $30k a year on their behalf because they are taxed on the last $2500 worth of that premium??? Facts are your friend, indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, what is wrong with you? Just because 300K is not the top 1 percent doesn't mean it isn't rich. It just isn't the richest.

Yes, get out of your bubble!

[Anonymous]

When did it turn into: if you can save some extra money for retirement and college, you're "rich"? Back in the day (50s, 60s), you used to be able to support a family on a single income, have 4-5 kids, and send them all to state school, and retire in your fifties on a nice pension.

The 1% has turned us into rats fighting for crumbs, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

$300k in high COL areas is far from rich. You get all the negatives of actually being rich like high taxes. But none of the support of being poor like college financial aid for children. $250-$500k is an economic death zone. Sure you may get a better annual vacation or nicer car than someone making $50k, but the day to day quality of life is not that much different.

You either have a warped world view or have a lot more debts than we do. We make $300K and have one nine year old. We went on several international vacations and are hosting a cookout for 15 of DD's friends this weekend at the pool that we belong to for no reason at all other than we feel like it. I think our life is quite different than someone making 50K. Now, granted, we only need to pay for college for one kid, but we've been funding her 529 since her birth.

DP. Two extra kids is a big difference. More daycare costs, more food, clothing, and health costs, more college savings needed. So yeah, it's not warped, it's math.

But you chose to push out those three kids. You chose to sit your ass at home with them instead of earning income. You are still rich at $300k. Just because you cant have everything you want and you had a bunch of kids and you spend all your money doesnt mean you arent rich at $300k.

This is just dumb. 3 kids is not a bunch of kids, and where does it say she spends all her money on luxuries?

Where did *I* say she spent all her money on luxuries? Three kids are a lot of kids. And a lifestyle choice. If she wanted to keep more money to do more things maybe not having three kids would be the choice to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, you are lower middle class in DC. 300k looks rich to you because it's more than double your income, but it's not rich. Your perspective is skewed. People making 50k here are straight up poor. The posters harping that people making 50k are middle class are delusional. We have plenty of medical assistants in our clinic with hhi 50-60k. Their finances are miserable. Zero retirement, perpetual renters, and they work like dogs for their wages. They splurge now and then, probably so they don't go crazy. Does that sound middle class?

Yes. That's what slashing the social safety net and basically having a dog-eat-dog society does to the middle class. But that doesn't mean that income level isn't middle class. If you think their situations are bad (and I agree they are), take a look at those of the truly destitute.

You are insisting that you aren't rich based on your perception of what rich should be. But statistics say otherwise. The problem is that a middle income can no longer support a decent lifestyle...not that people are arguing that 5-10%-ers are rich.

-- $600-700K HHI, so this isn't about me envying your lot

My definition of middle class is based on lifestyle. If you can't have, as you say, a decent lifestyle on average income, you are poor. Employers have done a good job keeping wages flat while the price of everything has gone up, so that 50k, which bought you a middle class lifestyle decades ago, now buys a lower class lifestyle. It's the same for people making 300k in DC. Their income buys them an okay house, decent to good schools, and retirement savings. This sounds solidly middle class to me. It was middle class 40 years ago. I'm not sure why so many posters here have adjusted their standards and insist that what was clearly middle class is now rich.

Probably because people now have a better and more comprehensive understanding of what poverty is and know that $300k is not middle class income no matter how many times you say it.

Enlighten me on this "better and more comprehensive understanding of poverty." It's more like you've adjusted your standards downward and only consider the homeless living under a bridge as truly poor. Or do they not qualify either, because there are starving Africans who beat them in the poverty game?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, you are lower middle class in DC. 300k looks rich to you because it's more than double your income, but it's not rich. Your perspective is skewed. People making 50k here are straight up poor. The posters harping that people making 50k are middle class are delusional. We have plenty of medical assistants in our clinic with hhi 50-60k. Their finances are miserable. Zero retirement, perpetual renters, and they work like dogs for their wages. They splurge now and then, probably so they don't go crazy. Does that sound middle class?

Yes. That's what slashing the social safety net and basically having a dog-eat-dog society does to the middle class. But that doesn't mean that income level isn't middle class. If you think their situations are bad (and I agree they are), take a look at those of the truly destitute.

You are insisting that you aren't rich based on your perception of what rich should be. But statistics say otherwise. The problem is that a middle income can no longer support a decent lifestyle...not that people are arguing that 5-10%-ers are rich.

-- $600-700K HHI, so this isn't about me envying your lot

My definition of middle class is based on lifestyle. If you can't have, as you say, a decent lifestyle on average income, you are poor. Employers have done a good job keeping wages flat while the price of everything has gone up, so that 50k, which bought you a middle class lifestyle decades ago, now buys a lower class lifestyle. It's the same for people making 300k in DC. Their income buys them an okay house, decent to good schools, and retirement savings. This sounds solidly middle class to me. It was middle class 40 years ago. I'm not sure why so many posters here have adjusted their standards and insist that what was clearly middle class is now rich.

I'm not sure why this is confusing to you. You said that you define middle class by lifestyle. Others define it by income or wealth. I think the difference of opinion is in the standards of consumption. We're 35, earn $300k, have $500k in retirement savings, $250k in home equity, $40k in a 529 for our 2 year old, and no student loan or car debt. We have a SFH in Arlington. If you want to say that's a solidly middle class existence, then I think your view of the world is slightly warped.

My parents were middle class (teacher and electrician). They scraped and saved to give me that existence, but I have it much, much easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did it turn into: if you can save some extra money for retirement and college, you're "rich"? Back in the day (50s, 60s), you used to be able to support a family on a single income, have 4-5 kids, and send them all to state school, and retire in your fifties on a nice pension.

The 1% has turned us into rats fighting for crumbs, people.

You could still do that if you weren't spending your $300K on stupid shit.

How do you know they're spending their money on stupid shit? More like daycare and student loans. Is that considered frivolous to you people now?

[Anonymous]

Ok you're not rich. You're damn near poverty stricken at 300k. No Whole Foods for you. Organic apples, nope your kids are lucky to be able to share 1 regular aople every 6 months. I'm sure you're eating canned food from Aldi. Vacation - well there was that 1 time you drove to NJ 15 yrs ago and stated in a hotel overnight. Starbucks - can't even. If the car breaks down - you can't get it fixed until you save the money so off to the bus you go. Retirement savings - maybe you can scrape together 1k per yr. College savings - lol you'll be lucky if you're able to help with community college but it's ok bc DD can waitress at the truck stop and make great cash. Yep - you all are poverty stricken at 300k and I commend you for surviving.

[Anonymous]

I seriously fear for our country with the delusional entitlement of many PPs. It's approaching a kind of materialistic moral bankruptcy that is deeply disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I seriously fear for our country with the delusional entitlement of many PPs. It's approaching a kind of materialistic moral bankruptcy that is deeply disturbing.

I totally agree! I can't believe some of these idiots think someone making $300k is rich! Rich people drive cars worth much more than 300k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously fear for our country with the delusional entitlement of many PPs. It's approaching a kind of materialistic moral bankruptcy that is deeply disturbing.

I totally agree! I can't believe some of these idiots think someone making $300k is rich! Rich people drive cars worth much more than 300k.

+ 1

I'm starting to think that these "social justice warriors" who are convinced 200-300k hhi is rich have just never met truly rich people.