Where do you draw the line between upper middle class and upper class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem here is the term "class" has as much to do with culture, connections, and family as it does it income. Most of the commenters here are really debating about levels of income or wealth (those terms are different but related) and not the broader term of class. However, even if using class as a proxy for wealth and income, there really needs to be a distinction between "wealthy" and truly upper class and all that comes with.

Who in the US would be upper class though? I can think of Chappy Morris. Who else?!

There is no upper class in the US. None.

in the back of the Wolf Trap playbill https://community.wolftrap.org/campaign/partners/donor-list there are multiple people--living individuals and couples--who donate $1M or more every year. That's to one arts non-profit. Pick a city, pick a museum/theater/university/hospital, you will see there are plenty of people with plenty of money to drop.

At any vacation destination -- skiing, beach, mountains -- there are high end timeshare communities that cost $1M or more for a 13-week share https://www.sprucepeak.com/pdf/spruce-peak-club-2024.pdf. People will have condos and cabins in multiple locations so they can go where they want, when they want--NYC, Vail, Diamond Head, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem here is the term "class" has as much to do with culture, connections, and family as it does it income. Most of the commenters here are really debating about levels of income or wealth (those terms are different but related) and not the broader term of class. However, even if using class as a proxy for wealth and income, there really needs to be a distinction between "wealthy" and truly upper class and all that comes with.

Who in the US would be upper class though? I can think of Chappy Morris. Who else?!

There is no upper class in the US. None.

in the back of the Wolf Trap playbill https://community.wolftrap.org/campaign/partners/donor-list there are multiple people--living individuals and couples--who donate $1M or more every year. That's to one arts non-profit. Pick a city, pick a museum/theater/university/hospital, you will see there are plenty of people with plenty of money to drop.

At any vacation destination -- skiing, beach, mountains -- there are high end timeshare communities that cost $1M or more for a 13-week share https://www.sprucepeak.com/pdf/spruce-peak-club-2024.pdf. People will have condos and cabins in multiple locations so they can go where they want, when they want--NYC, Vail, Diamond Head, etc.

But that doesn't mean they are upper class. They are just rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guarantee you the top 9% of the wealthiest people in the U.S. make more than 300k per year.

This makes no sense. The 90th percentile for HH incomes is $216K. 300K comes in at around the 95th or 96th percentile. So no, the "top tenth" are not *all* pulling at least 300K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem here is the term "class" has as much to do with culture, connections, and family as it does it income. Most of the commenters here are really debating about levels of income or wealth (those terms are different but related) and not the broader term of class. However, even if using class as a proxy for wealth and income, there really needs to be a distinction between "wealthy" and truly upper class and all that comes with.

Who in the US would be upper class though? I can think of Chappy Morris. Who else?!

There is no upper class in the US. None.

I think Americans associate the idea of an upper class with the old aristocracies of England and Europe. It's kind of offensive to the "American idea." So nobody wants to identify with it. Most just think it's basically billionaires, CEOs and celebrities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guarantee you the top 9% of the wealthiest people in the U.S. make more than 300k per year.

This makes no sense. The 90th percentile for HH incomes is $216K. 300K comes in at around the 95th or 96th percentile. So no, the "top tenth" are not *all* pulling at least 300K.

Omg you’re regurgitating income breakdowns. I will repeat it again. Wealth is not income. Income is not wealth. The wealthiest top 10% is not the same as the top 10% of taxable incomes (generally the income percentiles online talk about AGI). The top 10% of wealthy Americans have a NW close to $3M. This NW is not directly tied to income. You can be wealthy and not have an income at all.

The people earning 300k are not the same people sitting on millions and having academic buildings named after them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem here is the term "class" has as much to do with culture, connections, and family as it does it income. Most of the commenters here are really debating about levels of income or wealth (those terms are different but related) and not the broader term of class. However, even if using class as a proxy for wealth and income, there really needs to be a distinction between "wealthy" and truly upper class and all that comes with.

Who in the US would be upper class though? I can think of Chappy Morris. Who else?!

There is no upper class in the US. None.

I think Americans associate the idea of an upper class with the old aristocracies of England and Europe. It's kind of offensive to the "American idea." So nobody wants to identify with it. Most just think it's basically billionaires, CEOs and celebrities.

I am from Asia and we phased out aristocracy 120 years ago. upper class in modern context is usually associated with ugly Manchurian lords and nothing positive 😂 rich, however is mostly associated with positive things like access to luxury and financial freedom.

[Anonymous]

It has nothing to do with "regurgitation" it has to with basic statistics and arithmetic.
 
"I guarantee you the top 9% of the wealthiest people in the U.S. make more than 300k per year."

Except it's obvious that they don't ALL make that much. Only 4 or 5% of households earn over $300K a year - so obviously it's impossible for the top 9 or 10% to all be earning at least 300K.

And that 4-5% includes everybody who makes 300K a year includes one- and two-earner working household. It includes the "idle rich." It includes those retirees who have very good incomes from their sizeable investments. It includes those who spend it all now and those who save. All that's being reported is the number of people making that level of income. All these people added up yields half the number you claim.

Also where do you get this figure that 1 in 10 American households have a $3 million net worth? I think $3 million NW is around the 95th percentile. Obviously that overlaps with the 300K+ group but obviously there are retirees whose annual income is below that in the group and some $300K HHs that either haven't accumulated that level of wealth yet or adjust their spending to match their income and don't save.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Upper class doesnt have to work. They can live on dividends and businesses.

This.

[Anonymous]

So basically 0.1% of the working age population and every retiree with at least $1 million in savings?

[Anonymous]

The top 1% income is a lot higher than just upper middle class.

“ The income needed to be in the top 1% is more than $1,000,000 in five states — Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Washington and New Jersey.

Meanwhile, the income needed to be in the top 1% is below $500,000 in just three states — New Mexico, Mississippi and West Virginia.

Somewhat surprisingly, the Northeast beats out the West Coast for the highest incomes needed to crack the top 1% — Massachusetts and Connecticut rank ahead of California.”

After the top five states where the top 1% make at least $1 million a year, New York hits just under 1 million per year.

The 1% in the following states from high to low figures need at least …

7. Colorado. Top 1% income threshold: $896,273
8. Florida. Top 1% income threshold: $882,302
9. Wyoming. Top 1% income threshold: $872,896
10. New Hampshire. Top 1% income threshold: $839,742
11. Utah

12. Illinois. Top 1% income threshold: $811,004
13. Nevada. Top 1% income threshold: $804,627
14. Texas. Top 1% income threshold: $789,003
15. Virginia. Top 1% income threshold: $787,471
16. Maryland. Top 1% income threshold: $767,688
17. Minnesota. Top 1% income threshold: $755,880
20. Idaho. Top 1% income threshold: $728,859
21. Georgia. Top 1% income threshold: $725,284
22. Pennsylvania. Top 1% income threshold: $720,778
23. Arizona. Top 1% income threshold: $713,264
24. North Dakota. Top 1% income threshold: $708,284
25. Oregon. Top 1% income threshold: $707,296

More can be found on. https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/wealth/income-needed-to-be-top-1-percent-in-all-50-states/?utm_term=related_link_11&utm_campaign=1282497&utm_source=yahoo.com&utm_content=15&utm_medium=rss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am from England where we have a real class system, based on birth, education, profession rather than just finances.

Here in the US the "class" system is a joke.

England has a lot of outdated systems that need to be eliminated with deep shame. England has a lot of amends to make in the destruction and theft that they created all over the world. I hope your post is not written with some misguided sense of pride

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Upper class doesnt have to work. They can live on dividends and businesses.

I agree with this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper class doesnt have to work. They can live on dividends and businesses.

This is nothing more than a definition of convenience so that you can sit there and claim that you are a humble denizen of the middle class despite earning a million plus per year because it takes a job to be able to continue to afford a principle home worth 3+ million and at least 1 vacation home worth more than a million and 3 to 5 luxury vacations every year. And yes, I understand you only get rooms at the four Seasons and not suites. And yes, I understand you don't have a private plane or a personal chef. You're still rich.

Why are you so angry about this? Being rich and being upper class aren't the same thing. Upper class is inherited wealth, not someone who worked their way up and now makes $1M in big law.

I'm not saying we live a humble lifestyle with a HHI of $500K but we also can't afford to not work. We didn't get any money from our parents or other relatives. No trusts or anything. We both work every day. We are not upper class.

You’re what that article would have called “working wealthy.”

It may seem like splitting hairs, but the higher you go on the income/net worth ladder, the differences become exponential. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States

These figures are based on tax returns. The top 25% income was $94k and the top 20% was $110k. Pretty close to each other. But there’s a huge gap between the top 5% ($252k) and the top 1% ($682k). And the top .1% is $3.7 million!

That's exactly how I would describe us. We are wealthy, for sure, but we are working for that wealth every day.

And I think your point on the exponential differences. I'm sure you could make some sort of bell curve out of this, but to really appreciate the far ends you need to see the massive difference between 1% and .1%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You’re upper class if you can buy a $30 million dollar house today; pay with cash only and with not a worry about the financial impacts of the purchase.

Actually, you're not paying cash for the house, that would be stupid. You're leveraging other assets to finance the house so you can take the interest deductions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Class is more about lifestyle than income and assets. Most places in the US, we would have a more upper class lifestyle, but we live close to DC and so we’re UMC.

UMC - we own our home and drive well maintained, reliable cars. We go on 1-2 vacations a year and pay for travel sports and music lessons for kids in local public schools. We own stocks and we save money for retirement and college. We work in white-collar knowledge based jobs. We have investments and will inherit money, but we will need to work full time until a traditional retirement age of 65.

Upper class is like UMC but has 2 or more of the following:
kids in private school
2nd home
2+ vacations, some international or luxury accommodations
Doesn’t need to work a W-2 job or is able to work a passion job
Home is professionally decorated and/or landscaped
Makes most decisions based on personal preferences instead of cost/value/ROI

Really this is the key piece.

I'm sorry, but if you can't afford to maintain your lifestyle if you stop working, you're not UC.

Middle class is like UMC except instead of being a relaxing, enjoyable lifestyle they have to budget carefully to make it all work. They make choices between retirement and college saving. They may have to choose between expensive extracurriculars for the kids and vacations. If they don’t make sacrifices or trade offs, they are living in debt or can never retire.