What is Middle Class....Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Discussing salary without location is meaningless. Also not that relevant if you are talking about it without discussing family make-up.

$100K for a single person no kids D.C. Area is likely the high range of middle. They can live in a pretty nice apt and most importantly are not limited by where they can live by school options. This is the biggest cost.

That salary is probably UMC elsewhere though even if you have kids because in nonurban areas much more of the spots for living are viable school options.

Very strange terminology there. You're saying that a person earning $100k in DC is in the high (or upper) range of middle, but not upper-middle. They're the same thing.

Yes, apparently.....there's a difference between upper-middle-middle and lower-upper-middle. Wonder where $100k fits?

Just kidding!!!!!!!! LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who makes somewhere between 3M and 5M a year depending on a number of international factors, I have far more respect for the folks who make 100k and appreciate it than for the various slugs who trumpet their 200-500k salaries while looking down on people who make less. And I know who I'm far more likely to take under my wing for new business ventures.

Get over yourself. No one needs or wants you to take them "under your wing." Such a paternalistic comment..although I'm sure desperate OP might appreciate the offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who makes somewhere between 3M and 5M a year depending on a number of international factors, I have far more respect for the folks who make 100k and appreciate it than for the various slugs who trumpet their 200-500k salaries while looking down on people who make less. And I know who I'm far more likely to take under my wing for new business ventures.

Get over yourself. No one needs or wants you to take them "under your wing." Such a paternalistic comment..although I'm sure desperate OP might appreciate the offer.

I had the opposite impression. It struck me that he or she was more respectful than those earning mid-six figures. I've found that throughout life, though. The people at the very top (earning millions a year) are often much more polite and considerate since they have nothing to prove than those who are merely wealthy (earning $300,000 or $400,000 a year). It's the latter group that tends to be so full of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who makes somewhere between 3M and 5M a year depending on a number of international factors, I have far more respect for the folks who make 100k and appreciate it than for the various slugs who trumpet their 200-500k salaries while looking down on people who make less. And I know who I'm far more likely to take under my wing for new business ventures.

Get over yourself. No one needs or wants you to take them "under your wing." Such a paternalistic comment..although I'm sure desperate OP might appreciate the offer.

You just couldn't resist getting in another dig at the OP, whom you tease as being "desperate" despite her $100,000 salary - at the very same time you say the rich dude is "full of himself". Do you not see the irony here?

[Anonymous]

My DH makes a base salary of 300k. Then he gets a bo us that typically falls somewhere in the 250-500k range.

We try to live just on his base and save the rest it is really tough. I feel like it would be really hard to get ahead on just 300k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DH makes a base salary of 300k. Then he gets a bo us that typically falls somewhere in the 250-500k range.

We try to live just on his base and save the rest it is really tough. I feel like it would be really hard to get ahead on just 300k.

Proving OP's point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DH makes a base salary of 300k. Then he gets a bo us that typically falls somewhere in the 250-500k range.

We try to live just on his base and save the rest it is really tough. I feel like it would be really hard to get ahead on just 300k.

Our HHI is around $200k. 14 years ago it was close to $100k. We have managed to fund our retirements, save and start paying for out of state college, go on a few nice trips, and live within the beltway sending our children to highly rated public schools. It isn't very hard or tight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH makes a base salary of 300k. Then he gets a bo us that typically falls somewhere in the 250-500k range.

We try to live just on his base and save the rest it is really tough. I feel like it would be really hard to get ahead on just 300k.

Our HHI is around $200k. 14 years ago it was close to $100k. We have managed to fund our retirements, save and start paying for out of state college, go on a few nice trips, and live within the beltway sending our children to highly rated public schools. It isn't very hard or tight.

NP. Actually, thinking on this, the PP you're quoting probably pays over a third of their income just to federal taxes because of the size of the bonus. So if they're really trying to live on a third of 300k and are saving the rest, that's why it feels "hard" to them. They're actually living on less than you are. There is no way you are paying 33% in federal income taxes on 200k.

[Anonymous]

I don't know why this always produces such a fight. DC is objectively a HCOL city. It makes sense that it's going to take a higher income just be in the middle in a HIGH cost of living area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the conclusion here is eveyrhjngs relayyve. Some people seem quite happy on 100k, others don't.

For my part, since that's less than 50% of my current salary if I were making that 20 years down the road in my 50s I would not be thrilled.

+1. I really don't know why OP is twisting herself into knots trying to get us to admit we're out of touch and she is umc. I am 32 and our HHI is close to 7 figures now, so yeah, OP's salary, to me, is low, especially for someone in their 50's. That's my opinion but why do you care OP? Sounds like you have a good life.

We pull in 7 figures each month. Frankly, you sound like you haven't amounted to much in life.

I think what the OP was originally getting at is that people around here earn so much beyond the average - the top 2% or 3%, really - that they are completely out of touch, and think $100,000 is a low salary (someone even called that "poor") - and that it is the anger with that out-of-touch thinking that reverberated throughout the country and resulted in the uprising of the working class.

That so many DCUM readers, rather than acknowledge this, kept insisting that $100,000 is a low salary proved the OP's point. There were several examples of people living very comfortably on $100k, with international travel and maids and whatnot, yet others (the out-of-touch crowd) still said those people were not upper-middle class. (Didn't someone say a $100k salary almost qualified for welfare? SO out-of-touch!)

So many of you still do not understand the OP's point, and I can only imagine if she is annoyed at being called poor, or unsuccessful, or whatever it was, how infuriating it is for the lower-middle, who combined as a couple pull in maybe $60,000 or $70,000. They're fed up with that elitist attitude, and it definitely showed up at the polls.

All this. It's hard to listen to people bringing home hundreds of thousands of dollars a year whining about how poor they are when you are earning $60K and hoping the lights don't get cut off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why this always produces such a fight. DC is objectively a HCOL city. It makes sense that it's going to take a higher income just be in the middle in a HIGH cost of living area.

Sure, it's a HCOL area, but the average HHI here is still (slightly) under $100,000, and they're somehow managing. Complaining that trying to make ends meet on $300,00k - which is triple the DMV average - is offensive. And remember, the average nationally is something like $50,000. No way does it take 6x the income to live here. Welcome to the elitist bubble!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the conclusion here is eveyrhjngs relayyve. Some people seem quite happy on 100k, others don't.

For my part, since that's less than 50% of my current salary if I were making that 20 years down the road in my 50s I would not be thrilled.

+1. I really don't know why OP is twisting herself into knots trying to get us to admit we're out of touch and she is umc. I am 32 and our HHI is close to 7 figures now, so yeah, OP's salary, to me, is low, especially for someone in their 50's. That's my opinion but why do you care OP? Sounds like you have a good life.

We pull in 7 figures each month. Frankly, you sound like you haven't amounted to much in life.

I think what the OP was originally getting at is that people around here earn so much beyond the average - the top 2% or 3%, really - that they are completely out of touch, and think $100,000 is a low salary (someone even called that "poor") - and that it is the anger with that out-of-touch thinking that reverberated throughout the country and resulted in the uprising of the working class.

That so many DCUM readers, rather than acknowledge this, kept insisting that $100,000 is a low salary proved the OP's point. There were several examples of people living very comfortably on $100k, with international travel and maids and whatnot, yet others (the out-of-touch crowd) still said those people were not upper-middle class. (Didn't someone say a $100k salary almost qualified for welfare? SO out-of-touch!)

So many of you still do not understand the OP's point, and I can only imagine if she is annoyed at being called poor, or unsuccessful, or whatever it was, how infuriating it is for the lower-middle, who combined as a couple pull in maybe $60,000 or $70,000. They're fed up with that elitist attitude, and it definitely showed up at the polls.

All this. It's hard to listen to people bringing home hundreds of thousands of dollars a year whining about how poor they are when you are earning $60K and hoping the lights don't get cut off.

Yes, and that was the initial point of the thread, which veered off-course once (some) of the 1% and 2% earners started criticizing the $100,000 employee as not having been successful in her career. In a roundabout way, that demonstrated the OP's point. People that earn so much money, and whine how tough it is on $300,000, are not relating to the real working person in this country, making $50,000 and worried about how to pay an unexpected car repair or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who makes somewhere between 3M and 5M a year depending on a number of international factors, I have far more respect for the folks who make 100k and appreciate it than for the various slugs who trumpet their 200-500k salaries while looking down on people who make less. And I know who I'm far more likely to take under my wing for new business ventures.

Get over yourself. No one needs or wants you to take them "under your wing." Such a paternalistic comment..although I'm sure desperate OP might appreciate the offer.

I had the opposite impression. It struck me that he or she was more respectful than those earning mid-six figures. I've found that throughout life, though. The people at the very top (earning millions a year) are often much more polite and considerate since they have nothing to prove than those who are merely wealthy (earning $300,000 or $400,000 a year). It's the latter group that tends to be so full of themselves.

Not everyone earning 300-400k a year is full of themselves, but 3-5M poster definitely is. I agree some of the PP's have been rude to OP (calling her grandma and old lady isn't right) but no one has stated she is less than them because of her salary. People have offered their opinion on what's middle class but no one has said she is unworthy or unsuccessful in life, even if they consider her salary to be low. Perhaps OP should consider why her self worth is so rooted in her income and what others think of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH makes a base salary of 300k. Then he gets a bo us that typically falls somewhere in the 250-500k range.

We try to live just on his base and save the rest it is really tough. I feel like it would be really hard to get ahead on just 300k.

Our HHI is around $200k. 14 years ago it was close to $100k. We have managed to fund our retirements, save and start paying for out of state college, go on a few nice trips, and live within the beltway sending our children to highly rated public schools. It isn't very hard or tight.

NP. Actually, thinking on this, the PP you're quoting probably pays over a third of their income just to federal taxes because of the size of the bonus. So if they're really trying to live on a third of 300k and are saving the rest, that's why it feels "hard" to them. They're actually living on less than you are. There is no way you are paying 33% in federal income taxes on 200k.

WHAT!?! They live off their $300k income and save the bonus. There is no way they have $200k in taxes on $300k in income. Anyway, our spending is closer to $75k a year. Again, we have managed to save enough to pay for college for two children and for our retirement with the $200k (or less) income. The pp says they save only on the income ABOVE the $300k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who makes somewhere between 3M and 5M a year depending on a number of international factors, I have far more respect for the folks who make 100k and appreciate it than for the various slugs who trumpet their 200-500k salaries while looking down on people who make less. And I know who I'm far more likely to take under my wing for new business ventures.

Get over yourself. No one needs or wants you to take them "under your wing." Such a paternalistic comment..although I'm sure desperate OP might appreciate the offer.

You just couldn't resist getting in another dig at the OP, whom you tease as being "desperate" despite her $100,000 salary - at the very same time you say the rich dude is "full of himself". Do you not see the irony here?

OP is desperate because of her attitude, not her income.