Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously fear for our country with the delusional entitlement of many PPs. It's approaching a kind of materialistic moral bankruptcy that is deeply disturbing.

I totally agree! I can't believe some of these idiots think someone making $300k is rich! Rich people drive cars worth much more than 300k.

Anonymous wrote:I seriously fear for our country with the delusional entitlement of many PPs. It's approaching a kind of materialistic moral bankruptcy that is deeply disturbing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did it turn into: if you can save some extra money for retirement and college, you're "rich"? Back in the day (50s, 60s), you used to be able to support a family on a single income, have 4-5 kids, and send them all to state school, and retire in your fifties on a nice pension.

The 1% has turned us into rats fighting for crumbs, people.

You could still do that if you weren't spending your $300K on stupid shit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, you are lower middle class in DC. 300k looks rich to you because it's more than double your income, but it's not rich. Your perspective is skewed. People making 50k here are straight up poor. The posters harping that people making 50k are middle class are delusional. We have plenty of medical assistants in our clinic with hhi 50-60k. Their finances are miserable. Zero retirement, perpetual renters, and they work like dogs for their wages. They splurge now and then, probably so they don't go crazy. Does that sound middle class?

Yes. That's what slashing the social safety net and basically having a dog-eat-dog society does to the middle class. But that doesn't mean that income level isn't middle class. If you think their situations are bad (and I agree they are), take a look at those of the truly destitute.

You are insisting that you aren't rich based on your perception of what rich should be. But statistics say otherwise. The problem is that a middle income can no longer support a decent lifestyle...not that people are arguing that 5-10%-ers are rich.

-- $600-700K HHI, so this isn't about me envying your lot

My definition of middle class is based on lifestyle. If you can't have, as you say, a decent lifestyle on average income, you are poor. Employers have done a good job keeping wages flat while the price of everything has gone up, so that 50k, which bought you a middle class lifestyle decades ago, now buys a lower class lifestyle. It's the same for people making 300k in DC. Their income buys them an okay house, decent to good schools, and retirement savings. This sounds solidly middle class to me. It was middle class 40 years ago. I'm not sure why so many posters here have adjusted their standards and insist that what was clearly middle class is now rich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, you are lower middle class in DC. 300k looks rich to you because it's more than double your income, but it's not rich. Your perspective is skewed. People making 50k here are straight up poor. The posters harping that people making 50k are middle class are delusional. We have plenty of medical assistants in our clinic with hhi 50-60k. Their finances are miserable. Zero retirement, perpetual renters, and they work like dogs for their wages. They splurge now and then, probably so they don't go crazy. Does that sound middle class?

Yes. That's what slashing the social safety net and basically having a dog-eat-dog society does to the middle class. But that doesn't mean that income level isn't middle class. If you think their situations are bad (and I agree they are), take a look at those of the truly destitute.

You are insisting that you aren't rich based on your perception of what rich should be. But statistics say otherwise. The problem is that a middle income can no longer support a decent lifestyle...not that people are arguing that 5-10%-ers are rich.

-- $600-700K HHI, so this isn't about me envying your lot

My definition of middle class is based on lifestyle. If you can't have, as you say, a decent lifestyle on average income, you are poor. Employers have done a good job keeping wages flat while the price of everything has gone up, so that 50k, which bought you a middle class lifestyle decades ago, now buys a lower class lifestyle. It's the same for people making 300k in DC. Their income buys them an okay house, decent to good schools, and retirement savings. This sounds solidly middle class to me. It was middle class 40 years ago. I'm not sure why so many posters here have adjusted their standards and insist that what was clearly middle class is now rich.

Probably because people now have a better and more comprehensive understanding of what poverty is and know that $300k is not middle class income no matter how many times you say it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

$300k in high COL areas is far from rich. You get all the negatives of actually being rich like high taxes. But none of the support of being poor like college financial aid for children. $250-$500k is an economic death zone. Sure you may get a better annual vacation or nicer car than someone making $50k, but the day to day quality of life is not that much different.

You either have a warped world view or have a lot more debts than we do. We make $300K and have one nine year old. We went on several international vacations and are hosting a cookout for 15 of DD's friends this weekend at the pool that we belong to for no reason at all other than we feel like it. I think our life is quite different than someone making 50K. Now, granted, we only need to pay for college for one kid, but we've been funding her 529 since her birth.

DP. Two extra kids is a big difference. More daycare costs, more food, clothing, and health costs, more college savings needed. So yeah, it's not warped, it's math.

But you chose to push out those three kids. You chose to sit your ass at home with them instead of earning income. You are still rich at $300k. Just because you cant have everything you want and you had a bunch of kids and you spend all your money doesnt mean you arent rich at $300k.

This is just dumb. 3 kids is not a bunch of kids, and where does it say she spends all her money on luxuries?

Anonymous wrote:OP, what is wrong with you? Just because 300K is not the top 1 percent doesn't mean it isn't rich. It just isn't the richest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've learned something interesting from all this fighting, which is that apparently the people most convinced they *aren't* rich are conservatives. Some have argued here that people who think they have more than enough on $200k are "social justice warriors." This helps me understand why our republican senators are currently throwing sick children under a bus just so rich people can get tax breaks.

Not the conclusion I will make. I don't know about your healthcare costs, but mine grew astronomically with obamacare (9% for premiums per year and new coinsurance that makes you hit your deductible fast, which I never had till this year).

Are you actually on an Obamacare exchange plan? If not, the growth in premiums and coinsurance is thanks to your employer and the costs of medical care, NOT obamacare. #factsareyourfriend.

Not pp, but I was on an Obamacare exchange plan (until I got a new job), and the premiums were ridiculous and getting more so. However, much of the increase in costs for employer plans is also attributable to Obamacare. In particular, the minimum requirements for plans, taxes for "Cadillac plans," etc. #factsreallyareyourfriend

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

$300k in high COL areas is far from rich. You get all the negatives of actually being rich like high taxes. But none of the support of being poor like college financial aid for children. $250-$500k is an economic death zone. Sure you may get a better annual vacation or nicer car than someone making $50k, but the day to day quality of life is not that much different.

You either have a warped world view or have a lot more debts than we do. We make $300K and have one nine year old. We went on several international vacations and are hosting a cookout for 15 of DD's friends this weekend at the pool that we belong to for no reason at all other than we feel like it. I think our life is quite different than someone making 50K. Now, granted, we only need to pay for college for one kid, but we've been funding her 529 since her birth.

DP. Two extra kids is a big difference. More daycare costs, more food, clothing, and health costs, more college savings needed. So yeah, it's not warped, it's math.

But you chose to push out those three kids. You chose to sit your ass at home with them instead of earning income. You are still rich at $300k. Just because you cant have everything you want and you had a bunch of kids and you spend all your money doesnt mean you arent rich at $300k.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, you are lower middle class in DC. 300k looks rich to you because it's more than double your income, but it's not rich. Your perspective is skewed. People making 50k here are straight up poor. The posters harping that people making 50k are middle class are delusional. We have plenty of medical assistants in our clinic with hhi 50-60k. Their finances are miserable. Zero retirement, perpetual renters, and they work like dogs for their wages. They splurge now and then, probably so they don't go crazy. Does that sound middle class?

Yes. That's what slashing the social safety net and basically having a dog-eat-dog society does to the middle class. But that doesn't mean that income level isn't middle class. If you think their situations are bad (and I agree they are), take a look at those of the truly destitute.

You are insisting that you aren't rich based on your perception of what rich should be. But statistics say otherwise. The problem is that a middle income can no longer support a decent lifestyle...not that people are arguing that 5-10%-ers are rich.

-- $600-700K HHI, so this isn't about me envying your lot

My definition of middle class is based on lifestyle. If you can't have, as you say, a decent lifestyle on average income, you are poor. Employers have done a good job keeping wages flat while the price of everything has gone up, so that 50k, which bought you a middle class lifestyle decades ago, now buys a lower class lifestyle. It's the same for people making 300k in DC. Their income buys them an okay house, decent to good schools, and retirement savings. This sounds solidly middle class to me. It was middle class 40 years ago. I'm not sure why so many posters here have adjusted their standards and insist that what was clearly middle class is now rich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, you are lower middle class in DC. 300k looks rich to you because it's more than double your income, but it's not rich. Your perspective is skewed. People making 50k here are straight up poor. The posters harping that people making 50k are middle class are delusional. We have plenty of medical assistants in our clinic with hhi 50-60k. Their finances are miserable. Zero retirement, perpetual renters, and they work like dogs for their wages. They splurge now and then, probably so they don't go crazy. Does that sound middle class?

Yes. That's what slashing the social safety net and basically having a dog-eat-dog society does to the middle class. But that doesn't mean that income level isn't middle class. If you think their situations are bad (and I agree they are), take a look at those of the truly destitute.

You are insisting that you aren't rich based on your perception of what rich should be. But statistics say otherwise. The problem is that a middle income can no longer support a decent lifestyle...not that people are arguing that 5-10%-ers are rich.

-- $600-700K HHI, so this isn't about me envying your lot

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not since just before the Great Depression has the income gap between rich and poor Americans been so vast. The top 1 percent of U.S. families has an income, on average, $1,153,293 a year — about 25 times the $45,567 earned on average by the rest of American families.

Those numbers are from a report, “Income Inequality in the U.S. by State, Metropolitan Area, and County,” by the Economic Policy Institute. EPI, a nonpartisan think tank, examined state-level tax data from 1917 through 2013 (the latest year available) to report the gap, the earnings and the trends in every state.

Overall, the top 1 percent of earners took home 20.1 percent of all income in the U.S. in 2013.

Virginia: $987,607 per year

Maryland: $1,024,110 per year

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/slideshows/what-the-richest-1-percent-earns-every-state/


******

The rich are getting richer and leaving us all behind in the dust and instead of doing something about THAT, we fight with each other.

You are still tich. it is the cost of living and how you spend your money that is the problem