S/O what do you consider “haves”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What would you consider a kid who “haves”?

I come from humble beginnings but we earn a high income now. I try very hard not to spoil our children. I don’t want them to think they are a “have”. They want for nothing though.

Your kids are “haves” op. The “have nots” do not have the basics - food, shelter, security, education. The kids in the refugee camps, the kids growing up skipping meals cause there is simply nothing to eat, the kids working instead of school worldwide to help their families, are the “have nots”. Someone who “wants for nothing” in such a rich country is super privileged, no matter how much you try to restrain your spending to “not spoil them”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
DCUM bottoms out in this thread

There were a few reasonable posts which got derailed by the nitwit insisting that the only "haves" were the ones with a 8-figure trust fund.


I don’t know if it is the same person bragging about how their kid has been to 30 countries.

We go away every long weekend and school break. If we wanted to visit 10 different countries per year, we could. That is not what we want to do. We do some some domestic beach trips both driving and flying. I love Arizona and Maine. We will visit nyc, Philadelphia and Boston to visit friends and family. My 7 and 9yo have only been to probably 20 countries, maybe 15. Who really cares? No one is keeping tabs.


Who cares about your very mundane and boring trips to Maine, Philly, Arizona, etc?

If I want to die slowly of boredom, I’ll follow your vacation recommendations. Please enjoy your meals at Cracker Barrel while on your beach vacations in Virginia Beach. You’re so klassy!


My kids have also been to Monaco and Amalfi Coast. Most of their international travel has been to the Caribbean and Mexico. We don’t go to VA Beach.

We live in an affluent area and surrounded by wealth. Several of our neighbors leave their 10,000+ sf homes empty for the majority of the year because they have multiple other homes in other countries. I have only met one neighbor once. They spend most of their time in Europe.

Get off your high horse. You are not the only family who travels. To say that is the norm is obnoxious though. I can at least admit we are rich.


Elementary school children who have traveled to 30+ countries is NOT the norm—that was the entire point of my post (which flew right over your head).

Btw, you’re trying way too hard here. Stay klassy!


Why is visiting 30 countries a big deal? One could take a Caribbean cruise and knock off five, and another 10 in a single visit to Europe. I am sure many kids, and even more parents, have done that. Am I missing something?


My goodness you’re dense! Reading is fundamental—please read at least some of this thread before commenting.

Btw, if extensive foreign travel for an American child (age 10 and under) is so commonplace, then why don’t you know more children that age who have done so? Btw, the PP’s children have traveled to 5 continents. How old were you when you landed on your 5th continent? I doubt that you were anywhere near 10.

Extensive foreign travel before age 10 is wasted for most children. I wouldn't take young kids to lots of places until they are old enough to understand and appreciate more about where they are going.

Extensive foreign travel at that age is probably wasted on your children, but definitely not mine.

I consider regular international travel to be part of my children’s global education. Your sheep-like way of thinking is why we don’t often encounter other high SES children who have traveled as extensively.

If your kids have been to 30 countries, I’m curious to know how many countries you and your husband have visited, and when you started traveling internationally. Is this something you enjoyed together before the kids, or did you ramp it up for their benefit? I do agree that it probably has more value than a lot of what is taught in the public, and even the private, schools in this country.

I appreciate that you seem to be asking out of genuine curiosity, so I’ll answer your questions. I have traveled to well over 100 countries (my husband is at about half of my total). We traveled extensively before we had children, and we saw no reason to stop once they were born. Btw, my children love to travel, and now they even offer their input as to what they want to do and see on our upcoming trips. I have traveled a lot more than my husband because my father’s job required a few stints abroad. I was born in the states, but I lived in several foreign countries before returning to the U.S for high school.

I find it sad and ill-informed when people say that international travel is wasted on young children. We have all been shaped by our childhood experiences, in large and small ways. Voluntary foreign travel shapes children in positive ways, even if you don’t understand how or why. My children haven’t just read about historical events and sites, they have experienced these things in person. Those memories are the foundation of a first class education.

All that foreign travel isn’t going to make up for the fact that your kids and their SO’s are going to hate you later for being a judgmental, neurotic twit.

I’m not the PP, but why would you say that? Jealousy I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a silly thread. If travelling to many countries makes you a have, then refugees are haves. I'd also like to see a list of exactly what these 30 countries are, where the family stayed in each (hotel? resort? homestay?) and how old the kids were. We've traveled a lot with our kids, and they can't remember a thing about the places we went when they were little.

To me, a have is a person who doesn't have to work to live a reasonable lifestyle. I make 200k a year (after taxes) off of my investments and haven't worked in years. I can't do anything in the world that I want, but I sure can do a lot. I'm definitely a have.

The consensus seems to be that $200K in the DMV is not “have” territory, but I guess since you could always get a job, maybe that qualifies.

Maybe for raising a family in DC. But we've already done that. Our kids are raised and gone, we have no mortgage, and I stopped working 15 years earlier than the norm. $200k after taxes in DC requires earning nearly $300k before taxes (federal, state, social security, etc.). For a couple living in the DC area with $200k after taxes, no kids, and no mortgage, I think we qualify as "haves."

[Anonymous]

PP here. I guess I should also mention that we and our kids have been to every continent except Antarctica, since foreign travel seems to be a requirement for a "have . . ."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I guess I should also mention that we and our kids have been to every continent except Antarctica, since foreign travel seems to be a requirement for a "have . . ."

Why are you so insecure? Stop letting others define you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
DCUM bottoms out in this thread

There were a few reasonable posts which got derailed by the nitwit insisting that the only "haves" were the ones with a 8-figure trust fund.


I don’t know if it is the same person bragging about how their kid has been to 30 countries.

We go away every long weekend and school break. If we wanted to visit 10 different countries per year, we could. That is not what we want to do. We do some some domestic beach trips both driving and flying. I love Arizona and Maine. We will visit nyc, Philadelphia and Boston to visit friends and family. My 7 and 9yo have only been to probably 20 countries, maybe 15. Who really cares? No one is keeping tabs.


Who cares about your very mundane and boring trips to Maine, Philly, Arizona, etc?

If I want to die slowly of boredom, I’ll follow your vacation recommendations. Please enjoy your meals at Cracker Barrel while on your beach vacations in Virginia Beach. You’re so klassy!


My kids have also been to Monaco and Amalfi Coast. Most of their international travel has been to the Caribbean and Mexico. We don’t go to VA Beach.

We live in an affluent area and surrounded by wealth. Several of our neighbors leave their 10,000+ sf homes empty for the majority of the year because they have multiple other homes in other countries. I have only met one neighbor once. They spend most of their time in Europe.

Get off your high horse. You are not the only family who travels. To say that is the norm is obnoxious though. I can at least admit we are rich.


Elementary school children who have traveled to 30+ countries is NOT the norm—that was the entire point of my post (which flew right over your head).

Btw, you’re trying way too hard here. Stay klassy!


Why is visiting 30 countries a big deal? One could take a Caribbean cruise and knock off five, and another 10 in a single visit to Europe. I am sure many kids, and even more parents, have done that. Am I missing something?


My goodness you’re dense! Reading is fundamental—please read at least some of this thread before commenting.

Btw, if extensive foreign travel for an American child (age 10 and under) is so commonplace, then why don’t you know more children that age who have done so? Btw, the PP’s children have traveled to 5 continents. How old were you when you landed on your 5th continent? I doubt that you were anywhere near 10.

Extensive foreign travel before age 10 is wasted for most children. I wouldn't take young kids to lots of places until they are old enough to understand and appreciate more about where they are going.

Extensive foreign travel at that age is probably wasted on your children, but definitely not mine.

I consider regular international travel to be part of my children’s global education. Your sheep-like way of thinking is why we don’t often encounter other high SES children who have traveled as extensively.

If your kids have been to 30 countries, I’m curious to know how many countries you and your husband have visited, and when you started traveling internationally. Is this something you enjoyed together before the kids, or did you ramp it up for their benefit? I do agree that it probably has more value than a lot of what is taught in the public, and even the private, schools in this country.

I appreciate that you seem to be asking out of genuine curiosity, so I’ll answer your questions. I have traveled to well over 100 countries (my husband is at about half of my total). We traveled extensively before we had children, and we saw no reason to stop once they were born. Btw, my children love to travel, and now they even offer their input as to what they want to do and see on our upcoming trips. I have traveled a lot more than my husband because my father’s job required a few stints abroad. I was born in the states, but I lived in several foreign countries before returning to the U.S for high school.

I find it sad and ill-informed when people say that international travel is wasted on young children. We have all been shaped by our childhood experiences, in large and small ways. Voluntary foreign travel shapes children in positive ways, even if you don’t understand how or why. My children haven’t just read about historical events and sites, they have experienced these things in person. Those memories are the foundation of a first class education.

Your kids have experienced historical events in person? Are you traveling in a time machine??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
DCUM bottoms out in this thread

There were a few reasonable posts which got derailed by the nitwit insisting that the only "haves" were the ones with a 8-figure trust fund.


I don’t know if it is the same person bragging about how their kid has been to 30 countries.

We go away every long weekend and school break. If we wanted to visit 10 different countries per year, we could. That is not what we want to do. We do some some domestic beach trips both driving and flying. I love Arizona and Maine. We will visit nyc, Philadelphia and Boston to visit friends and family. My 7 and 9yo have only been to probably 20 countries, maybe 15. Who really cares? No one is keeping tabs.


Who cares about your very mundane and boring trips to Maine, Philly, Arizona, etc?

If I want to die slowly of boredom, I’ll follow your vacation recommendations. Please enjoy your meals at Cracker Barrel while on your beach vacations in Virginia Beach. You’re so klassy!


My kids have also been to Monaco and Amalfi Coast. Most of their international travel has been to the Caribbean and Mexico. We don’t go to VA Beach.

We live in an affluent area and surrounded by wealth. Several of our neighbors leave their 10,000+ sf homes empty for the majority of the year because they have multiple other homes in other countries. I have only met one neighbor once. They spend most of their time in Europe.

Get off your high horse. You are not the only family who travels. To say that is the norm is obnoxious though. I can at least admit we are rich.


Elementary school children who have traveled to 30+ countries is NOT the norm—that was the entire point of my post (which flew right over your head).

Btw, you’re trying way too hard here. Stay klassy!


Why is visiting 30 countries a big deal? One could take a Caribbean cruise and knock off five, and another 10 in a single visit to Europe. I am sure many kids, and even more parents, have done that. Am I missing something?


My goodness you’re dense! Reading is fundamental—please read at least some of this thread before commenting.

Btw, if extensive foreign travel for an American child (age 10 and under) is so commonplace, then why don’t you know more children that age who have done so? Btw, the PP’s children have traveled to 5 continents. How old were you when you landed on your 5th continent? I doubt that you were anywhere near 10.

Extensive foreign travel before age 10 is wasted for most children. I wouldn't take young kids to lots of places until they are old enough to understand and appreciate more about where they are going.

Extensive foreign travel at that age is probably wasted on your children, but definitely not mine.

I consider regular international travel to be part of my children’s global education. Your sheep-like way of thinking is why we don’t often encounter other high SES children who have traveled as extensively.

If your kids have been to 30 countries, I’m curious to know how many countries you and your husband have visited, and when you started traveling internationally. Is this something you enjoyed together before the kids, or did you ramp it up for their benefit? I do agree that it probably has more value than a lot of what is taught in the public, and even the private, schools in this country.

I appreciate that you seem to be asking out of genuine curiosity, so I’ll answer your questions. I have traveled to well over 100 countries (my husband is at about half of my total). We traveled extensively before we had children, and we saw no reason to stop once they were born. Btw, my children love to travel, and now they even offer their input as to what they want to do and see on our upcoming trips. I have traveled a lot more than my husband because my father’s job required a few stints abroad. I was born in the states, but I lived in several foreign countries before returning to the U.S for high school.

I find it sad and ill-informed when people say that international travel is wasted on young children. We have all been shaped by our childhood experiences, in large and small ways. Voluntary foreign travel shapes children in positive ways, even if you don’t understand how or why. My children haven’t just read about historical events and sites, they have experienced these things in person. Those memories are the foundation of a first class education.

Your kids have experienced historical events in person? Are you traveling in a time machine??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are "haves". They have a fully funded college education, they will be gifted money for their first down payment, they have tutors when they need it, they have music lessons and play an expensive sport, they are bilingual, they have braces, they have healthy home cooked food every day, they have parents who are home each day by 5pm and everyone eats dinner around the table, they have a large extended family that lives locally, they have nice vacations and have been able to do things like hike the Inca trail and are able to see first hand what they've learned in school, they have a family who models what it means to be a healthy adult, they have access to a great education.

I'm not ashamed my kids are have, nor do I try to make them think thry are not haves. They have opportunities and doors pushed wide open for them to walk right in. We hope they one day step through the thresh hold.

My kids have all this too and I don’t consider them “haves.”

Personally, I think to be in “have” territory, it’s because you know your kids will be inheriting a 20M + trust fund at age 25. What you’re describing is normal UMC lifestyle. The world has gotten MUCH more competitive since the 80s and 90s. Even with everything you and I give our kids, we can’t guarantee their future success. It’s money and (big) trust funds that can.

I have not read this entire thread, and I assume (hope!) that I am not the first person to suggest that this is utter and complete bullshit. OP has set up a binary paradigm - one is either a have, or a have not. It's ridiculous to think that someone with all that the first PP described is a have-not; therefore, they must be a have. And it is absolutely, completely preposterous to assert that in order to qualify as a have, a kid needs to be getting a $20+ million trust fund.

I have no idea what the motivation is for these people who are unquestionably well-off to characterize themselves as have-nots - I'm sure there's some deep-seated psychological reason. But whatever it is, it makes them seem incredibly stupid. So I guess, when it comes to critical thinking and basic empathy, they are all have-nots. Congratulations, I guess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are "haves". They have a fully funded college education, they will be gifted money for their first down payment, they have tutors when they need it, they have music lessons and play an expensive sport, they are bilingual, they have braces, they have healthy home cooked food every day, they have parents who are home each day by 5pm and everyone eats dinner around the table, they have a large extended family that lives locally, they have nice vacations and have been able to do things like hike the Inca trail and are able to see first hand what they've learned in school, they have a family who models what it means to be a healthy adult, they have access to a great education.

I'm not ashamed my kids are have, nor do I try to make them think thry are not haves. They have opportunities and doors pushed wide open for them to walk right in. We hope they one day step through the thresh hold.

My kids have all this too and I don’t consider them “haves.”

Personally, I think to be in “have” territory, it’s because you know your kids will be inheriting a 20M + trust fund at age 25. What you’re describing is normal UMC lifestyle. The world has gotten MUCH more competitive since the 80s and 90s. Even with everything you and I give our kids, we can’t guarantee their future success. It’s money and (big) trust funds that can.

I agree. An example of this would be celebrities and those that grow up around them. Many of those kids that grow up around them are considered "haves". They may not have a 20 million trust fund but they have access to a lot.

I have not read this entire thread, and I assume (hope!) that I am not the first person to suggest that this is utter and complete bullshit. OP has set up a binary paradigm - one is either a have, or a have not. It's ridiculous to think that someone with all that the first PP described is a have-not; therefore, they must be a have. And it is absolutely, completely preposterous to assert that in order to qualify as a have, a kid needs to be getting a $20+ million trust fund.

I have no idea what the motivation is for these people who are unquestionably well-off to characterize themselves as have-nots - I'm sure there's some deep-seated psychological reason. But whatever it is, it makes them seem incredibly stupid. So I guess, when it comes to critical thinking and basic empathy, they are all have-nots. Congratulations, I guess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are "haves". They have a fully funded college education, they will be gifted money for their first down payment, they have tutors when they need it, they have music lessons and play an expensive sport, they are bilingual, they have braces, they have healthy home cooked food every day, they have parents who are home each day by 5pm and everyone eats dinner around the table, they have a large extended family that lives locally, they have nice vacations and have been able to do things like hike the Inca trail and are able to see first hand what they've learned in school, they have a family who models what it means to be a healthy adult, they have access to a great education.

I'm not ashamed my kids are have, nor do I try to make them think thry are not haves. They have opportunities and doors pushed wide open for them to walk right in. We hope they one day step through the thresh hold.

My kids have all this too and I don’t consider them “haves.”

Personally, I think to be in “have” territory, it’s because you know your kids will be inheriting a 20M + trust fund at age 25. What you’re describing is normal UMC lifestyle. The world has gotten MUCH more competitive since the 80s and 90s. Even with everything you and I give our kids, we can’t guarantee their future success. It’s money and (big) trust funds that can.

I have not read this entire thread, and I assume (hope!) that I am not the first person to suggest that this is utter and complete bullshit. OP has set up a binary paradigm - one is either a have, or a have not. It's ridiculous to think that someone with all that the first PP described is a have-not; therefore, they must be a have. And it is absolutely, completely preposterous to assert that in order to qualify as a have, a kid needs to be getting a $20+ million trust fund.

I have no idea what the motivation is for these people who are unquestionably well-off to characterize themselves as have-nots - I'm sure there's some deep-seated psychological reason. But whatever it is, it makes them seem incredibly stupid. So I guess, when it comes to critical thinking and basic empathy, they are all have-nots. Congratulations, I guess?

No one is saying children of the well off are “have nots”, the term “haves and have nots” refers to the extremes, the haves are extremely wealthy and the have nots are extremely poor. Everyone else in between is neither. Of course many people that are not extremely wealthy have a lot, that does not mean that they are “haves” for purposes of this specific phrase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a silly thread. If travelling to many countries makes you a have, then refugees are haves. I'd also like to see a list of exactly what these 30 countries are, where the family stayed in each (hotel? resort? homestay?) and how old the kids were. We've traveled a lot with our kids, and they can't remember a thing about the places we went when they were little.

To me, a have is a person who doesn't have to work to live a reasonable lifestyle. I make 200k a year (after taxes) off of my investments and haven't worked in years. I can't do anything in the world that I want, but I sure can do a lot. I'm definitely a have.

The consensus seems to be that $200K in the DMV is not “have” territory, but I guess since you could always get a job, maybe that qualifies.

Maybe for raising a family in DC. But we've already done that. Our kids are raised and gone, we have no mortgage, and I stopped working 15 years earlier than the norm. $200k after taxes in DC requires earning nearly $300k before taxes (federal, state, social security, etc.). For a couple living in the DC area with $200k after taxes, no kids, and no mortgage, I think we qualify as "haves."

Our HHI is around $200k- pretax including bonus, we have two children in college. We have been able to save for a great retirement and pay for our children's college. We are most definitely in the haves category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are "haves". They have a fully funded college education, they will be gifted money for their first down payment, they have tutors when they need it, they have music lessons and play an expensive sport, they are bilingual, they have braces, they have healthy home cooked food every day, they have parents who are home each day by 5pm and everyone eats dinner around the table, they have a large extended family that lives locally, they have nice vacations and have been able to do things like hike the Inca trail and are able to see first hand what they've learned in school, they have a family who models what it means to be a healthy adult, they have access to a great education.

I'm not ashamed my kids are have, nor do I try to make them think thry are not haves. They have opportunities and doors pushed wide open for them to walk right in. We hope they one day step through the thresh hold.

My kids have all this too and I don’t consider them “haves.”

Personally, I think to be in “have” territory, it’s because you know your kids will be inheriting a 20M + trust fund at age 25. What you’re describing is normal UMC lifestyle. The world has gotten MUCH more competitive since the 80s and 90s. Even with everything you and I give our kids, we can’t guarantee their future success. It’s money and (big) trust funds that can.

+1

Most people with decent incomes (500k +) do everything the quoted PP does, it’s called good parenting.

damn so a decent income in DCUM land is half a million dollars? You people live in a damn bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids are "haves". They have a fully funded college education, they will be gifted money for their first down payment, they have tutors when they need it, they have music lessons and play an expensive sport, they are bilingual, they have braces, they have healthy home cooked food every day, they have parents who are home each day by 5pm and everyone eats dinner around the table, they have a large extended family that lives locally, they have nice vacations and have been able to do things like hike the Inca trail and are able to see first hand what they've learned in school, they have a family who models what it means to be a healthy adult, they have access to a great education.

I'm not ashamed my kids are have, nor do I try to make them think thry are not haves. They have opportunities and doors pushed wide open for them to walk right in. We hope they one day step through the thresh hold.

Sounds like a future bosses's worst nightmare of an employee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are "haves". They have a fully funded college education, they will be gifted money for their first down payment, they have tutors when they need it, they have music lessons and play an expensive sport, they are bilingual, they have braces, they have healthy home cooked food every day, they have parents who are home each day by 5pm and everyone eats dinner around the table, they have a large extended family that lives locally, they have nice vacations and have been able to do things like hike the Inca trail and are able to see first hand what they've learned in school, they have a family who models what it means to be a healthy adult, they have access to a great education.

I'm not ashamed my kids are have, nor do I try to make them think thry are not haves. They have opportunities and doors pushed wide open for them to walk right in. We hope they one day step through the thresh hold.

My kids have all this too and I don’t consider them “haves.”

Personally, I think to be in “have” territory, it’s because you know your kids will be inheriting a 20M + trust fund at age 25. What you’re describing is normal UMC lifestyle. The world has gotten MUCH more competitive since the 80s and 90s. Even with everything you and I give our kids, we can’t guarantee their future success. It’s money and (big) trust funds that can.

+1

Most people with decent incomes (500k +) do everything the quoted PP does, it’s called good parenting.

damn so a decent income in DCUM land is half a million dollars? You people live in a damn bubble.

My HHI used to be 500K then my Dad got a job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this sound about right?

Have nothing - low income
Have not - LMC/MC
Have - UMC
Have More - Top 1%
Have All - Trust fund baby. Never has to work.

+1