The title of the thread is down and out on 250K a year folks. You are either it down with that or not. The people who are arguing that the article is correct are essentially saying that. So yeah, people are saying that.

Agree that no one on this thread who is making $250K describes themselves as 'down and out'- it's just that they don't necessarily have the 'disposible income' to easily pay even more than they do now in taxes. We all have to make trade offs and choices. It's not whining, it's just reality. Yes, making $250K vs $150K gives you more choice, but it certainly doesn't eliminate many trade offs. That doesn't happen until you get into much higher income brackets. My family makes about $300K/year- we consider ourselves very fortunate and are happy to have the opportunities we do- definitely no complaints here. It doesn't mean we don't struggle to pay for childcare and other expenses that are much higher in the DC area.

What exactly is the problem so many people have with the term "rich"? Why are they so defensive about being labeled "rich"? Exactly, what is it you don't like about it?

Anonymous



11:06, it's that these high income earners are not rich, not that they are down and out, or scraping by.

"What people are bothered by is when people make these large incomes and say they are down and out or scraping by."

No one has said that on this thread. People need to learn how to read; maybe that's why they're not the ones making $250k/year or more. Take the emotion out of it and look at the numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do know that CEOs of big companies make considerably more than $250k, right? Again, serious contrast in income between the actually wealthy and those making $250k. Just because you have trouble imagining that lots of people make so much more or because you "feel rich" on less doesn't change the huge difference between the wealthy and the upper-middle class.

This is not the crux of the discussion. People don't like to hear from people making 250K that they are down and out. No matter if many others are loaded and making a lot more, that doesn't mean you deserve to be. It's amazing how dense some people are. Just because some people can afford zoos in their back yard doesn't take away from the fact that as pointed out earlier you make more than 97% of the population.

But it also does not mean that someone making $250,000 might not deserve to make 5X the median national salary, either.

Of course not, I agree. You have me confused with somebody else. I was never saying anyone was not deserving of their salary - not an issue here. My only point is that there is justification for people getting pissy when those making 250K and above use terms like down and out or whine they aren't rich. Who cares what the definition of rich is, if you are making that much it's a lot, and if you are feeling squeezed you are not managing your money well. Move to a smaller home, go daycare instead of a nanny, don't spend 50K a year putting two kids in private school if you don't want to be squeezed. Or be squeezed, just don't bitch about it and expect people not to point out stats and question you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do know that CEOs of big companies make considerably more than $250k, right? Again, serious contrast in income between the actually wealthy and those making $250k. Just because you have trouble imagining that lots of people make so much more or because you "feel rich" on less doesn't change the huge difference between the wealthy and the upper-middle class.

This is not the crux of the discussion. People don't like to hear from people making 250K that they are down and out. No matter if many others are loaded and making a lot more, that doesn't mean you deserve to be. It's amazing how dense some people are. Just because some people can afford zoos in their back yard doesn't take away from the fact that as pointed out earlier you make more than 97% of the population.

But it also does not mean that someone making $250,000 might not deserve to make 5X the median national salary, either.

11:06, it's that these high income earners are not rich, not that they are down and out, or scraping by.

"What people are bothered by is when people make these large incomes and say they are down and out or scraping by."

Anonymous wrote:

Had someone told me this when I got out of college, I might just have skipped grad school. I would love to be earning $70K/year, getting to go home at night and not having to worry about a damn thing until the next day. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

So, will you tell your own kids not to go to grad school?

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it really is. But you will never get that. You don't get new standards, nor do I. No matter how you slice it, those who are making not only 250K but much, much less and whining about it are clueless and out of touch.

Why is it ridiculous to bust your rump in med or law school for years and then whine about how you don't feel rich? What truly middle class professions spend 3 or more years in school beyond high school? It's an effort vs. reward thing. It's not that waitresses and school teachers don't work hard, it's that they are less educated. If I made $70K a year, I'd want 2 or 3 months off each year too, but since I make $200K, I think it's reasonable for me to have to work 11.5 months a year.

There is a big difference between someone who makes $250K/year because they slogged out med school or law school and someone who makes $70K a year who didn't go to grad school. In most cases, that $250K comes at the price of being able to tuck your kids in at night, or to even know if you are going to make it home at night. If you do make it home, there is a good chance you are tethered to your blackberry or beeper, and someone outside your family requires 24 hour access to you. Layer on $1-200K+ debt that can last 15-20 years, a higher tax bracket, no real retirement plans geared for your or access to tax-deductible retirement plans, the need for childcare 10 hours/day minimum, and no opportunity really to be a stay at home parent because you have a ton of school debt that you can't get out of by bankruptcy or because you'll lose your career path and your earning potential. Plus, all those years of grad school meant you had years you were not only not earning, but collecting debt.

Had someone told me this when I got out of college, I might just have skipped grad school. I would love to be earning $70K/year, getting to go home at night and not having to worry about a damn thing until the next day. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Anonymous wrote:You do know that CEOs of big companies make considerably more than $250k, right? Again, serious contrast in income between the actually wealthy and those making $250k. Just because you have trouble imagining that lots of people make so much more or because you "feel rich" on less doesn't change the huge difference between the wealthy and the upper-middle class.

This is not the crux of the discussion. People don't like to hear from people making 250K that they are down and out. No matter if many others are loaded and making a lot more, that doesn't mean you deserve to be. It's amazing how dense some people are. Just because some people can afford zoos in their back yard doesn't take away from the fact that as pointed out earlier you make more than 97% of the population.

I'm with the poster who said how incredibly lucky they are to have a child who likely will NOT ever be truly hungry.

My BIL is currently living in his parents house with his very young fiancee and their two young kids. They have massive medical bills looming over them and debt collectors calling them all the time. His fiancee and our niece and nephew are on food stamps and medicaid. I'm not saying they didn't make bad choices (including having the first kid at 20 and neither of them having much beyond a HS education), but I thank my lucky stars every day that we are not in that position. We have access to good health insurance, whereas before the medicaid, they had insurance that covered almost nothing and high deductibles because that is what happens to the working class in the day of rising health costs. We have a roof over our heads (even though it is small, we are paying for it an in no danger of losing it) and food on the table, never worrying about where our next meal may come from. We can actually afford to put money into retirement out of pocket (neither of us currently has a retirement plans through our employers) and pay monthly for really good life insurance. They are just barely getting by, and draining my ILs resources as well.

Do I want you to feel sorry for them? No - as I said, they have made some very bad choices that put them in this position. But I think people are so wrapped up in "I'm NOT rich" that they forget how fortunate they really are to have resources and choices. You don't HAVE to live up to some lifestyle and spend all the income you have coming in each month, which thereby makes you feel like you're just getting by. You aren't somehow entitled to a nanny and a housekeeper and private school - those are choices, choices you have because you have that income coming in, but you then send it right back out when you make the choice to spend it on these items.

You do know that CEOs of big companies make considerably more than $250k, right? Again, serious contrast in income between the actually wealthy and those making $250k. Just because you have trouble imagining that lots of people make so much more or because you "feel rich" on less doesn't change the huge difference between the wealthy and the upper-middle class.

People who are low income get very irritated about high-income people complaining. No cute little emoticoms saying, "You should try living on $50K a year!!! "

People have NO PATIENCE for high income complaining.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it really is. But you will never get that. You don't get new standards, nor do I. No matter how you slice it, those who are making not only 250K but much, much less and whining about it are clueless and out of touch.

Why is it ridiculous to bust your rump in med or law school for years and then whine about how you don't feel rich? What truly middle class professions spend 3 or more years in school beyond high school? It's an effort vs. reward thing. It's not that waitresses and school teachers don't work hard, it's that they are less educated. If I made $70K a year, I'd want 2 or 3 months off each year too, but since I make $200K, I think it's reasonable for me to have to work 11.5 months a year.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here or how it's relevant to the subject. If you got a pricey degree, and secured a job making 250K, you are doing well. No one is saying you don't deserve to make 250K or a lot more. I'm a big believer that CEOs who lead companies and are responsible for the employment of hundreds or thousands should be compensated much, much more than people like me who work hard, but could more easily be replaced. What people are bothered by is when people make these large incomes and say they are down and out or scraping by.

If you are laid off for two years, fine you are not rich. But when you were making 250K a year you were. MC Hammer made several million dollars. He was rich. He blew it all on (literally) things like gold plated door knobs, cars, etc. and didn't properly invest, and when he couldn't produce another successful song the money dried up. He wasn't rich anymore, but he was rich then. It's just how it works.