Rich v Affluent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But $95k pp for a three-week cruise? OMG. Crazy! And even the people earning $400k can't afford that. So maybe they look at some high-end luxury experience that only a billionaire could afford, and think....I can't do that, so I'm not rich. But they could afford a luxury cruise that goes for $7000 a week, and to me, that's pretty rich.

PP here.
Exactly. I was just looking at another catalogue they brought us recently - advertising some National Geographic expedition cruises for $20k-30k for a one-week cruise per person. And then there were some Tiffany Christmas catalogues advertising a $40k bracelet and stuff like that. That's all for people from a parallel universe, not for rich people from this planet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100K in dc is not upper middle. Your numbers are off by a fact or two or more. (maybe not at the low end)

But it also depends on how you define the attributes of the classes. I do not like defining status based on income.

According to your chart, I am affluent. I do not feel affluent. I am comfortable, but only because my house was purchased in 1999.

HHI of about 195K, family of three. We can not take nice vacations. But, we always have decent food on the table, drive reliable and safe cars (not luxury), and the house is cool (A/C). I have to think about money, but do not worry about it. There is always enough to pay the bills. And I am on target for retirement savings.

To me, that is middle to upper middle.

what's your definition of nice?

Nice? A vacation to a Caribbean resort...or Hawaii. Our vacations usually involve staying with relatives in other areas (e.g., Aunt's beach place).

[Anonymous]

In DC the 1% begins at 555k, I'd make that the top your scale

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/01/26/what-the-top-1-percent-makes-in-every-state/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In DC the 1% begins at 555k, I'd make that the top your scale

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/01/26/what-the-top-1-percent-makes-in-every-state/

Yup DC is very high compared to the rest of the nation, I would consider inside the beltway DC .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In DC the 1% begins at 555k, I'd make that the top your scale

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/01/26/what-the-top-1-percent-makes-in-every-state/

Yup DC is very high compared to the rest of the nation, I would consider inside the beltway DC .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There have been a number of threads insisting that people earning $300,000, $400,000, and more are not rich (and the converse statement that people with $200k HHI are not even middle class). Perhaps the problem lies with the definition of "rich." Some people say one is rich when he can live off passive income, and others say that rich would encompass those who manage to own a home in a major city (the city, not the surrounding area), send their kids to private school, international travel, and still have money left over to find retirement and college accounts.

Would it solve the problem by calling people "affluent" and "extremely affluent"? If so, I would say the following works for an [/b]INDIVIDUAL income [b]in the DC metro area:

Under $30k = Poor
$30k to $50k = Lower-Middle
$50 to $80 = Straight Middle
$80 to $120 = Upper Middle
$120 to $200 = Affluent
$200+ = Very Affluent

Double these figures if talking about HHI.

Pretty sure everyone is jumping all over OP while ignoring that she specified those ranges for INDIVIDUAL income, while you all are likening these numbers to what a family of 4 needs and then saying it isn't enough.

As a single person, I tend to agree with these ranges - as I'm in the government now in what feels like an affluent range and was in biglaw for 10 yrs in a very affluent range. It's a matter of ones own feelings but to me -- the markets or affluence are -- maxing out the 401k to 18k consistently year after year; having taxable investments outside of 401k/IRA/HSA that you put money into consistently every month/quarter and having the cash on hand that if the market dips a few %, you can pick up a few shares of Berkshire or Amazon or whatever ETFs/funds; and the ability to travel esp. last minute or short trips whenever you feel like it. That doesn't mean that you'll stay in a Four Seasons or Ritz, but it means being able to buy plane tickets and rooms at a Marriott or Hilton without feeling like you shouldn't go bc it'll throw off your budget for the month. For me the difference between gov't and biglaw has been -- the number of shares of anything I buy for my taxable investments esp. in market dip situations -- still buy but it won't be 100 shares here or there, it may only be 30 or 50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been a number of threads insisting that people earning $300,000, $400,000, and more are not rich (and the converse statement that people with $200k HHI are not even middle class). Perhaps the problem lies with the definition of "rich." Some people say one is rich when he can live off passive income, and others say that rich would encompass those who manage to own a home in a major city (the city, not the surrounding area), send their kids to private school, international travel, and still have money left over to find retirement and college accounts.

Would it solve the problem by calling people "affluent" and "extremely affluent"? If so, I would say the following works for an [/b]INDIVIDUAL income [b]in the DC metro area:

Under $30k = Poor
$30k to $50k = Lower-Middle
$50 to $80 = Straight Middle
$80 to $120 = Upper Middle
$120 to $200 = Affluent
$200+ = Very Affluent

Double these figures if talking about HHI.

Pretty sure everyone is jumping all over OP while ignoring that she specified those ranges for INDIVIDUAL income, while you all are likening these numbers to what a family of 4 needs and then saying it isn't enough.

As a single person, I tend to agree with these ranges - as I'm in the government now in what feels like an affluent range and was in biglaw for 10 yrs in a very affluent range. It's a matter of ones own feelings but to me -- the markets or affluence are -- maxing out the 401k to 18k consistently year after year; having taxable investments outside of 401k/IRA/HSA that you put money into consistently every month/quarter and having the cash on hand that if the market dips a few %, you can pick up a few shares of Berkshire or Amazon or whatever ETFs/funds; and the ability to travel esp. last minute or short trips whenever you feel like it. That doesn't mean that you'll stay in a Four Seasons or Ritz, but it means being able to buy plane tickets and rooms at a Marriott or Hilton without feeling like you shouldn't go bc it'll throw off your budget for the month. For me the difference between gov't and biglaw has been -- the number of shares of anything I buy for my taxable investments esp. in market dip situations -- still buy but it won't be 100 shares here or there, it may only be 30 or 50.

*markers of affluence

[Anonymous]

In DC, any dual income couple in their 30's or older making less than $150k is flat out poor. There is no other way to properly describe that couple. $150k-400k middle. $400-$1 million upper middle. Million plus is affluent. $2 million plus is rich.

[Anonymous]

Rich describes wealth

Wealth is not income. A million of income in a year does not make you rich. Do that for ten years and save your money and you have a decent start at it.

[Anonymous]

So many of you people seem to not have a clue what it costs to raise a kid in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rich describes wealth

Wealth is not income. A million of income in a year does not make you rich. Do that for ten years and save your money and you have a decent start at it.

True.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many of you people seem to not have a clue what it costs to raise a kid in this area.

Also true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In DC, any dual income couple in their 30's or older making less than $150k is flat out poor. There is no other way to properly describe that couple. $150k-400k middle. $400-$1 million upper middle. Million plus is affluent. $2 million plus is rich.

Alrighty then.
Income range of 1-85% = poor.
Only the top 15% of DC residents are not poor.
The rest are impoverished.
Got it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In DC, any dual income couple in their 30's or older making less than $150k is flat out poor. There is no other way to properly describe that couple. $150k-400k middle. $400-$1 million upper middle. Million plus is affluent. $2 million plus is rich.

http://www.dcfpi.org/interactive-how-does-your-household-income-compare-to-other-dc-households-2-2

So:

1-85% = poor
85-98% = middle class
98-99.9% = upper middle class
99.9%+ = rich

Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich is net worth. Income certainly can be conducive to net worth, but it is not the same as net worth. Don't talk to me about incomes and 'rich.' Rich is assets.

That's ridiculous. So someone who makes $1M per year, but spends it all is not rich.

There are several very wealthy athletes and Hollywood celebrities who end up with virtually nothing because they spend it frivolously. That doesn't mean they weren't rich.

Were only rich while the money lasted.

The fact that all the money can be spent means the person/family is not actually rich, but extremely wealthy.

If one has to think about what they purchase (including jets and/or yachts) they are not actually rich. Certainly they are wealthier than the rest of us, but not truly rich like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Saudi princes, etc.