Down and Out on $250K/year....

[Anonymous]

A lot of this has to do with a distorted sense of what the rich are and what the rich do. Yachts, jets, and vacations in St. Tropez aren't the markers of being well-off, as with everything wealth and affluence has gradations. Many of the "appropriate" expenditures of this family from retirement/college savings to a $750k home are in fact choices which are possible because the means are available- most people simply don't have the luxury of these options.

In the DC area, many people elect to live very far from their workplaces, for example, because they simply cannot afford a $3000/month PI payment as this family has. So this family, could easily halve their mortgage and live in a distant suburb to commute to their jobs, but they have the luxury of choice. The family could live with one car, but chooses two- how many families "need' to have two cars in DC or Alexandria if you live proximate to public transport.

So come on...let's get real, especially given that half the world (3 billion people) lives on less than $2.50 a day...try placing $250k a year on that continuum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Agree that it's probably not "down-and-out" - but it does shed a lot of light on the fact that folks who have worked hard, trying to do the right things - like educating themselves (resulting in student loans), saving for retirement, kids' college expenses, and both parents working to make it happen - aren't "rich" by any standard, particularly in this area.

Since when does "doing the right thing" = rich?

You tell me - - I'm not the one who created the arbitrary $250K threshold for being "rich." My point was that folks who are trying to do the right things finanically, i.e., fiscally responsible, are now being saddled with the "rich" tag, when that's far from accurate, especially in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of this has to do with a distorted sense of what the rich are and what the rich do. Yachts, jets, and vacations in St. Tropez aren't the markers of being well-off, as with everything wealth and affluence has gradations. Many of the "appropriate" expenditures of this family from retirement/college savings to a $750k home are in fact choices which are possible because the means are available- most people simply don't have the luxury of these options.

In the DC area, many people elect to live very far from their workplaces, for example, because they simply cannot afford a $3000/month PI payment as this family has. So this family, could easily halve their mortgage and live in a distant suburb to commute to their jobs, but they have the luxury of choice. The family could live with one car, but chooses two- how many families "need' to have two cars in DC or Alexandria if you live proximate to public transport.

So come on...let's get real, especially given that half the world (3 billion people) lives on less than $2.50 a day...try placing $250k a year on that continuum.

THIS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree that it's probably not "down-and-out" - but it does shed a lot of light on the fact that folks who have worked hard, trying to do the right things - like educating themselves (resulting in student loans), saving for retirement, kids' college expenses, and both parents working to make it happen - aren't "rich" by any standard, particularly in this area.

Since when does "doing the right thing" = rich?

You tell me - - I'm not the one who created the arbitrary $250K threshold for being "rich." My point was that folks who are trying to do the right things finanically, i.e., fiscally responsible, are now being saddled with the "rich" tag, when that's far from accurate, especially in this area.

250k and having the ability to do everything in this article does make you rich even in this area.

[Anonymous]

CHOICE! That is the crux of the matter. Being able to afford childcare, healthcare, to buy a home, an emergency fund, saving for college and retirement -- that's RICH! A lot of people don't have those choices. Most americans earn approximately $200,000 LESS!
Just because you cannot afford everything you WANT (possibly including SAVING MORE) does not mean you are NOT rich! But it darn sure means you should not complain!!!

[Anonymous]

But implying, PP, that those making over $250K/yr can somehow shoulder more taxes is what is nuts. The article shows this group already pays a significant amount in taxes, but because they are the so-called rich, they should be able to pay more in taxes. The article shows that the numbers just don't bear out.

[Anonymous]

Their are people who are richer than Will Smith and Bill Gates -- who can buy things that the latter cannot -- but that doesn't mean Will and Bill are NOT Rich!

[Anonymous]

NP here - I don't hear anyone complaining about not having enough at that income level. The story seems to state that higher taxes will only make it harder for those folks to not be a drain on the system, too.

[Anonymous]

To say $250K a year anywhere is rich is ridiculous. It's upper middle class salary, not wealth, not rich. DH and I make this now living in DC. With private school tuition plus nanny plus mortgage and insurances plus healthcare there isn't much left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With private school tuition plus nanny plus mortgage and insurances plus healthcare there isn't much left.

Isn't the point that you can in fact have all these things, which most people cannot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With private school tuition plus nanny plus mortgage and insurances plus healthcare there isn't much left.

Isn't the point that you can in fact have all these things, which most people cannot?

Amen. It's not middle class either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To say $250K a year anywhere is rich is ridiculous. It's upper middle class salary, not wealth, not rich. DH and I make this now living in DC. With private school tuition plus nanny plus mortgage and insurances plus healthcare there isn't much left.

And people that make 500K can find things to spend all there money on too. Hell Mike Tyson was buying Tigers as pets with his money. He had to declare bankruptcy because he couldn't keep up with his spending. Doesn't mean he wasn't rich!

[Anonymous]

*their*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To say $250K a year anywhere is rich is ridiculous. It's upper middle class salary, not wealth, not rich. DH and I make this now living in DC. With private school tuition plus nanny plus mortgage and insurances plus healthcare there isn't much left.

You are rich because you earn in the top 3%.
This is an objective measure of your income.
What you choose to do with your money and what your expectations of how rich people should live are subjective and therefore irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To say $250K a year anywhere is rich is ridiculous. It's upper middle class salary, not wealth, not rich. DH and I make this now living in DC. With private school tuition plus nanny plus mortgage and insurances plus healthcare there isn't much left.

Oh barf! Private school, nannies, mortgage... these are all LUXURIES! You have a distorted sense of reality. You can make different choices and have plenty left over every month.