Can we stop referring to households making $200 or 300K a year as "middle class"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need a new name for the group that is above $200k and below $500k. Upper middle class doesn't seem to cut it. How about lower upper class?

or working upper class?

That's us - working upper class. HHI of about $430K but no intergenerational wealth and the HHI is spread 50/50 between the parents.

So, you don't have kids?

[Anonymous]

This notion of HHI being split between two adults is a kind of silly copout unless those two adults have separate mortgages and utilities.

[Anonymous]

If they are not financially secure in this income they are actually "poor". High earnings does not equate wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they are not financially secure in this income they are actually "poor". High earnings does not equate wealth.

What are you saying? If they spend all their money, then they are poor? What kind of distinction is that?

[Anonymous]

So if we are distinguishing the upper class between "working" and "non-working" now, should we be doing the same with lower and middle class? One could conceivable have a modest trust fund that requires them not to work but only provides a middle class income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they are not financially secure in this income they are actually "poor". High earnings does not equate wealth.

If they are not financially secure in this income they are stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if we are distinguishing the upper class between "working" and "non-working" now, should we be doing the same with lower and middle class? One could conceivable have a modest trust fund that requires them not to work but only provides a middle class income.

There's still a huge difference between the working uppers/HENRY's and the upper class though ... the distinction that we're trying to get at is more that people feel that 250-500k is a level above middle or upper middle class.

I find the modest trust fund/don't have to work but only pulling in a middle class income thing really hard to believe. It's a hypothetical to the point that it's not a real situation. If you were pulling in, say, 50-100k a year from your trust fund, even as a single person, I really think you'd still be working. And if you had kids you'd be a stay at home parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need a new name for the group that is above $200k and below $500k. Upper middle class doesn't seem to cut it. How about lower upper class?

or working upper class?

That's us - working upper class. HHI of about $430K but no intergenerational wealth and the HHI is spread 50/50 between the parents.

So, you don't have kids?

I do have kids. But no money to flow to them from my parents or ILs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need a new name for the group that is above $200k and below $500k. Upper middle class doesn't seem to cut it. How about lower upper class?

or working upper class?

That's us - working upper class. HHI of about $430K but no intergenerational wealth and the HHI is spread 50/50 between the parents.

So, you don't have kids?

I do have kids. But no money to flow to them from my parents or ILs.

But presumably at $430K, you have money to flow to them from your own income.

[Anonymous]

There just isn't a great word for that in-between class people like me are in. $215,000 or so HHI, probably $2 million household net worth, technically -- but it's virtually all in retirement savings and home equity, not liquid, and we live in this expensive area. No way are we "rich" or "wealthy" or "affluent," but we're not middle-class.

"Comfortable" understates it a bit? "Well-off"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There just isn't a great word for that in-between class people like me are in. $215,000 or so HHI, probably $2 million household net worth, technically -- but it's virtually all in retirement savings and home equity, not liquid, and we live in this expensive area. No way are we "rich" or "wealthy" or "affluent," but we're not middle-class.

"Comfortable" understates it a bit? "Well-off"?

We have similar stats and consider ourselves affluent, well off, comfortable, wealthy and rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There just isn't a great word for that in-between class people like me are in. $215,000 or so HHI, probably $2 million household net worth, technically -- but it's virtually all in retirement savings and home equity, not liquid, and we live in this expensive area. No way are we "rich" or "wealthy" or "affluent," but we're not middle-class.

"Comfortable" understates it a bit? "Well-off"?

We have similar stats and consider ourselves affluent, well off, comfortable, wealthy and rich.

But then what do you call the people with billions of dollars who steal their employees' pension money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need a new name for the group that is above $200k and below $500k. Upper middle class doesn't seem to cut it. How about lower upper class?

or working upper class?

That's us - working upper class. HHI of about $430K but no intergenerational wealth and the HHI is spread 50/50 between the parents.

So, you don't have kids?

I do have kids. But no money to flow to them from my parents or ILs.

But presumably at $430K, you have money to flow to them from your own income.

Um, that's not intergenerational wealth transfer (?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There just isn't a great word for that in-between class people like me are in. $215,000 or so HHI, probably $2 million household net worth, technically -- but it's virtually all in retirement savings and home equity, not liquid, and we live in this expensive area. No way are we "rich" or "wealthy" or "affluent," but we're not middle-class.

"Comfortable" understates it a bit? "Well-off"?

WHAT?
Because of the way you choose to allocate your money you do not consider yourselves affluent/
You are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There just isn't a great word for that in-between class people like me are in. $215,000 or so HHI, probably $2 million household net worth, technically -- but it's virtually all in retirement savings and home equity, not liquid, and we live in this expensive area. No way are we "rich" or "wealthy" or "affluent," but we're not middle-class.

"Comfortable" understates it a bit? "Well-off"?

We have similar stats and consider ourselves affluent, well off, comfortable, wealthy and rich.

But then what do you call the people with billions of dollars who steal their employees' pension money?

dirty rotten stinking filthy rich.