Study shows that 350k/year is barely scrapping by as middle class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I thunk the PP got it right and is defining middle class as you still need a huge paycheck to support your life. Rich would be having large investments that produce enough income on their own to pay for your lifestyle.

That's ridiculous. You mean someone who earns $1mil, but has a $700K lifestyle (less taxes), so has little in investments, is not considered rich?

I would say such a person would be the exception that proves the rule. There are probably only few hundred people like that in the entire country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I thunk the PP got it right and is defining middle class as you still need a huge paycheck to support your life. Rich would be having large investments that produce enough income on their own to pay for your lifestyle.

That's ridiculous. You mean someone who earns $1mil, but has a $700K lifestyle (less taxes), so has little in investments, is not considered rich?

Yes until they save a bunch of that huge earning into investment accounts that will later provide its own passive income to fund their life. Granted this is much easier to do with $1M in income than it is with $100k

[Anonymous]

The MC is huge. That’s something that people seem unable to grasp. One person making $80k is MC and another making $500k yr is UMC. “Rich” ie upper class requires assets of $10M.
That class is also large with an enormous spread from the $10M at the bottom to the $1+ Billion at the top.
But working for $500k yr still UMC.

[Anonymous]

According to a Wall Street Journal article published on October 25th, 2011 called The Wild Ride of the 1%, in 2007, before the Great Recession, there were nearly 400,000 individuals earning $1,000,000 or more in the United StateS

[Anonymous]

https://www.joshuakennon.com/how-many-people-earn-more-than-1000000-per-year-in-the-united-states/
Quora is more accurate but it doesn’t let you cut and paste

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the middle class and the UMC continue to battle this out when really both should turn their ire to the .1% who really should be made to pay more in taxes?

It's like circuses and bread in the Roman times, I tell you.

To stop complaining about our "average MC lifestyle" is to admit that we are privileged, why on earth would any of us UMC folks do that!?!? Don't you understand that I am as stricken with poverty as the minimum wage cashier at Walmart? I can afford nothing after paying $20k a month on expenses, half of which are optional. Have some sympathy for your fellow DCUMers.

No one is saying that. And by the way, read the room. No cashier is posting on DCUM.

The point is, the .1% have been the true winners in the Information Revolution and the GOP further protects their gains by cutting taxes to benefit only them.

If the Information Revolution had occurred at a time when the top tax bracket was extended to reflect current reality (that many people do earn more than a million a year and that even beyond that, some earn more than 5 million a year and so on), the benefits would be more evenly spread around in society and there would be much less class warfare.

I don't think you understand sarcasm very well. That post is clearly dripping sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The MC is huge. That’s something that people seem unable to grasp. One person making $80k is MC and another making $500k yr is UMC. “Rich” ie upper class requires assets of $10M.
That class is also large with an enormous spread from the $10M at the bottom to the $1+ Billion at the top.
But working for $500k yr still UMC.

that makes no sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a “stupid article.” It was vetted by FIRE proponents and they agreed with the estimates. As a family with HHI around $320K in NW DC, these estimates are spot on.

The trick is to get a job in DC or Boston, and then move to a LCOL area while continuing to telecommute with the same job. I have a few colleagues doing this and they are very happy, especially in the young kid years.

What "middle class" neighborhood has a median home price of 1.6 million? It's definitely not Silver Spring, which is my definition of middle class in the DC area.

No that is low class, bad schools and a high proportion of low income people (more than 10%)

Dont be fooled by realtors and other cheerleaders of real estate, Bethesda is middle class, it's just not as affordable as it was in the past.

LOL. I know a lobbyist that lives in Silver Spring and has a wife that has never worked. Silver Spring is not a low class area.

We have a HHI of 400k and live in Silver Spring.

That's the point, 400k and having to live in a low class area like silver spring. So you need double to live in a decent area like Bethesda?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MC is huge. That’s something that people seem unable to grasp. One person making $80k is MC and another making $500k yr is UMC. “Rich” ie upper class requires assets of $10M.
That class is also large with an enormous spread from the $10M at the bottom to the $1+ Billion at the top.
But working for $500k yr still UMC.

that makes no sense

I agree. It doesn’t make sense. It would be like the US not admitting to being a first world/developed country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I thunk the PP got it right and is defining middle class as you still need a huge paycheck to support your life. Rich would be having large investments that produce enough income on their own to pay for your lifestyle.

That's ridiculous. You mean someone who earns $1mil, but has a $700K lifestyle (less taxes), so has little in investments, is not considered rich?

Yes until they save a bunch of that huge earning into investment accounts that will later provide its own passive income to fund their life. Granted this is much easier to do with $1M in income than it is with $100k

Nope. Such a person is rich, just dumb with their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I thunk the PP got it right and is defining middle class as you still need a huge paycheck to support your life. Rich would be having large investments that produce enough income on their own to pay for your lifestyle.

That's ridiculous. You mean someone who earns $1mil, but has a $700K lifestyle (less taxes), so has little in investments, is not considered rich?

No. Because said person would be dirt poor tomorrow if they lost their income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I thunk the PP got it right and is defining middle class as you still need a huge paycheck to support your life. Rich would be having large investments that produce enough income on their own to pay for your lifestyle.

That's ridiculous. You mean someone who earns $1mil, but has a $700K lifestyle (less taxes), so has little in investments, is not considered rich?

No. Because said person would be dirt poor tomorrow if they lost their income.

A rich fool and their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MC is huge. That’s something that people seem unable to grasp. One person making $80k is MC and another making $500k yr is UMC. “Rich” ie upper class requires assets of $10M.
That class is also large with an enormous spread from the $10M at the bottom to the $1+ Billion at the top.
But working for $500k yr still UMC.

that makes no sense

+1 under no economic analysis does making 500k/yr = anywhere in the MC, UMC or otherwise. Not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I thunk the PP got it right and is defining middle class as you still need a huge paycheck to support your life. Rich would be having large investments that produce enough income on their own to pay for your lifestyle.

That's ridiculous. You mean someone who earns $1mil, but has a $700K lifestyle (less taxes), so has little in investments, is not considered rich?

No. Because said person would be dirt poor tomorrow if they lost their income.

Rich people can also become poor due to bad investments and overspending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I thunk the PP got it right and is defining middle class as you still need a huge paycheck to support your life. Rich would be having large investments that produce enough income on their own to pay for your lifestyle.

That's ridiculous. You mean someone who earns $1mil, but has a $700K lifestyle (less taxes), so has little in investments, is not considered rich?

No. Because said person would be dirt poor tomorrow if they lost their income.

No. That person *might* have to downsize and would have change spending habits but they wouldn’t be dirt poor.