Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what is sad?

- living in a home you own
- providing for a quality education for your children
- being able to afford basic home and car maintenance
- saving for retirement
- ensuring health care continues post working age
- leaving something of a nest egg for your heirs

These are pretty basic things, and should be attainable by our middle class, however you so define it. And yet many of these things no longer are middle class.

I have no real answers on where we've gone wrong as a culture - the rise of dual income households, lack of universal healthcare, eroded taxation, easy debt, etc - all probably play some role.

But I tell you, even as someone more squarely in the "haves" category than the "have not", it's really sad to see such basic aspirations become squarely for the well off and largely unattainable to at least 50% - if not 75% - of our country.

It's because we live in a HCOL area. If you don't like it, you don't have to live here, particularly if your jobs are portable. My in laws live in upstate NY and I love it there. I am always pushing my husband to consider moving. The houses are beautiful and comparative cheap. The schools are excellent and less competitive than DC area schools because there are fewer people. There are plenty of cultural things to do. Maybe not as much as in DC but we hardly go into the city on weekends these days anyway. It's too much of a hassle and expensive to get a sitter. A gorgeous 1930s 3k sq ft Tudor just sold on their street for less than $500k. I was amazed. I really want to move.

Upstate NY has been on the decline for years. Where in upstate NY do they have good paying jobs? And don't even get me started on the winter weather.

Last month, I paid my construction loan mortgage, my kid's camp costs, my taxes, my utilities, bills, etc. At the end of the month, I only had a couple thousand left to play with so I signed my kid up for some swim lessons, got my dog groomed, went out to dinner a few times with friends, bought tickets for a show in the summer and paid my last installment for my beach rental.

All after putting away for retirement, medical, savings, 529.

You mean, this isn't barely getting by on my 275K income?

Look, if you can save for retirement, go on pricey vacations and buy a $700K house, you are not poor or getting by. Nice try though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is an extra equity payment?

We oay an extra 1600 a month towards our mortgage. It goes to principle. This way the mortgage will be paid off in 15 years instead of 30.

Why would you do that instead of investing the $1600?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So if you can't sit around in your pajamas all day, you are not upper middle class?? First of all, upper middle class doesn't mean 1%er. It means well off. I'm so sick of people who are extremely well off trying to pretend they aren't just because there is someone richer out there.

If you can save 200K annually in 5 years you'll have a million in the bank plus your retirement and whatever else you have saved. If you don't want to call yourself rich, fine. It doesn't change the fact that you are. I can call myself the queen of England if I want but it doesn't change the facts.

This is not 1986, a million dollars in the bank plus retirement doesn't make you rich. I am so sick of people who thinks someone like me is rich just because there is someone poorer out there.

You seem to define "rich" as "only people who can heat their houses by burning $100 bills," in which case the word is totally meaningless. How about this: If you have a HHI of $250K you are in the top 3% of our country, income-wise. The top 1% is about $400K/year and up.

http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/

Depends on what part of the country you are in. In NYC, it takes close to $600k to break into the 1%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what is sad?

- living in a home you own
- providing for a quality education for your children
- being able to afford basic home and car maintenance
- saving for retirement
- ensuring health care continues post working age
- leaving something of a nest egg for your heirs

These are pretty basic things, and should be attainable by our middle class, however you so define it. And yet many of these things no longer are middle class.

I have no real answers on where we've gone wrong as a culture - the rise of dual income households, lack of universal healthcare, eroded taxation, easy debt, etc - all probably play some role.

But I tell you, even as someone more squarely in the "haves" category than the "have not", it's really sad to see such basic aspirations become squarely for the well off and largely unattainable to at least 50% - if not 75% - of our country.

This is thoughtful and compassionate. Though I must say I do not NOT think people making 200k, even in the DC area, are unable to do all the things you mention, unless they are assuming a "decent" education requires private school or a public school in a neighborhood with $800K+ houses.

Of course that is what they think. They want to buy the larger, updated house that would probably be priced at $400-500k in cheaper cities and can you really blame them? It just sucks that housing costs so much more here. And don't give me that crap about salaries being higher to compensate. They aren't high enough. High six figure salaries exist in small cities too.

Anonymous wrote:You know what is sad?

- living in a home you own
- providing for a quality education for your children
- being able to afford basic home and car maintenance
- saving for retirement
- ensuring health care continues post working age
- leaving something of a nest egg for your heirs

These are pretty basic things, and should be attainable by our middle class, however you so define it. And yet many of these things no longer are middle class.

I have no real answers on where we've gone wrong as a culture - the rise of dual income households, lack of universal healthcare, eroded taxation, easy debt, etc - all probably play some role.

But I tell you, even as someone more squarely in the "haves" category than the "have not", it's really sad to see such basic aspirations become squarely for the well off and largely unattainable to at least 50% - if not 75% - of our country.

It's because we live in a HCOL area. If you don't like it, you don't have to live here, particularly if your jobs are portable. My in laws live in upstate NY and I love it there. I am always pushing my husband to consider moving. The houses are beautiful and comparative cheap. The schools are excellent and less competitive than DC area schools because there are fewer people. There are plenty of cultural things to do. Maybe not as much as in DC but we hardly go into the city on weekends these days anyway. It's too much of a hassle and expensive to get a sitter. A gorgeous 1930s 3k sq ft Tudor just sold on their street for less than $500k. I was amazed. I really want to move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I totally agree. If you *have* to work for a living, you aren't rich. The English class system, which we base ours on whether you want to admit it or not, was based on this very idea. You were either of the "leisure" class and pursued hobbies all day long or you worked. UMC people could be pretty well off but if you were still working to make money, you were not Upper class.

You are conflating "rich" with "Upper Class". Even in England, this is no longer the case...radical shifts happened around the turn of the last century where "middle class" tradespeople became much wealthier than the traditional landed aristocracy (this is basically what the entire series Downton Abbey is about).

UMC probably ranges anywhere from a HHI of $200K (exact figure debatable) to several millions. It's a large income range, but it still accounts for a tiny fraction of people. Some UMC people manage to save and invest to the point where their salaries are no longer their primary means of support (e.g. they no longer "have" to work). I guess in the US, that's pretty close to being UC.

All of these people, UMC and UC, are rich by any standard other than Daddy Warbucks and the Forbes 500.

So then you agree that making an income in the mid six figures or even high six figures doesn't make you rich. Thank you. Someone sees sense.

$$ management is all about priorities and choices.

If you live in a high COL city like SF and DC, then you have many things to consider. Namely, what are your personal needs and wants, and what are you willing to sacrifice to get them? What can you live with?

The $200 HHI family with one kid could very easily move to two bedroom apartment in this area with a good school district and pay less than $3k per month, if schools w/ high test scores is a top priority. They may even be able to buy in that area. They may, however, need to sacrifice in their commute time, living space, and/or retirement savings to achieve this.

The trick is to find the best balance of priorities. Me and DH make about $300HHI and we feel squeezed. But this is by choice. We decided that commute and retirement savings were our top priorities. We wanted to spend the least amount of time commuting as possible so we can spend that time with family, so we paid a heavy premium for our location. We need to save for retirement since SS will probably be gone and so our kids don't have the float us as adults, like we have to float our parents. Schools came next on the priority list. As both DH and I grew up relatively poor, attended the equivalent of title one schools as kids, and now are doing very well for ourselves, we believe GS grades and high test scores in schools in general are highly overrated when it comes to school quality. Parent's education (mother's really) is the #1 success factor when it comes kids academic performance. Next is commitment from the administration/principal. Our kids are in a "mid-ranged" 4-7 GS schools and are doing very well. Our opinion and experience, and not judging any elses. Not saying our way is the right way, but this was the thought process we used in determining our priorities. Hopefully this helps someone.

Anonymous wrote:For starters, do not get a 3K mortgage (that is 36K/12 months).

You can save money on food simply by digital/paper coupons.

You don't save money on FOOD with paper coupons, you save money on processed shit that will put you into an early grave (after it cases diabetes, hypertension, metabolic disorder, heart disease and cancer).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So if you can't sit around in your pajamas all day, you are not upper middle class?? First of all, upper middle class doesn't mean 1%er. It means well off. I'm so sick of people who are extremely well off trying to pretend they aren't just because there is someone richer out there.

If you can save 200K annually in 5 years you'll have a million in the bank plus your retirement and whatever else you have saved. If you don't want to call yourself rich, fine. It doesn't change the fact that you are. I can call myself the queen of England if I want but it doesn't change the facts.

This is not 1986, a million dollars in the bank plus retirement doesn't make you rich. I am so sick of people who thinks someone like me is rich just because there is someone poorer out there.

You seem to define "rich" as "only people who can heat their houses by burning $100 bills," in which case the word is totally meaningless. How about this: If you have a HHI of $250K you are in the top 3% of our country, income-wise. The top 1% is about $400K/year and up.

http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/

Wow, you must be dumb, you can't compare the entire country, shit why didn't you include Zimbabwe where they live in dirt huts

Here is a picture of Harare, Zimbabwe and surprise surprise they do not live in dirt huts.
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/640x/da/73/c6/da73c6bb5d8cc7cf8708a070f9575a09.jpg

Yes, but their median income is probably much lower. So, by Zimbabwean standards, if you are making $50K, you are rich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So if you can't sit around in your pajamas all day, you are not upper middle class?? First of all, upper middle class doesn't mean 1%er. It means well off. I'm so sick of people who are extremely well off trying to pretend they aren't just because there is someone richer out there.

If you can save 200K annually in 5 years you'll have a million in the bank plus your retirement and whatever else you have saved. If you don't want to call yourself rich, fine. It doesn't change the fact that you are. I can call myself the queen of England if I want but it doesn't change the facts.

This is not 1986, a million dollars in the bank plus retirement doesn't make you rich. I am so sick of people who thinks someone like me is rich just because there is someone poorer out there.

You seem to define "rich" as "only people who can heat their houses by burning $100 bills," in which case the word is totally meaningless. How about this: If you have a HHI of $250K you are in the top 3% of our country, income-wise. The top 1% is about $400K/year and up.

http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/

Wow, you must be dumb, you can't compare the entire country, shit why didn't you include Zimbabwe where they live in dirt huts

Here is a picture of Harare, Zimbabwe and surprise surprise they do not live in dirt huts.
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/640x/da/73/c6/da73c6bb5d8cc7cf8708a070f9575a09.jpg

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So if you can't sit around in your pajamas all day, you are not upper middle class?? First of all, upper middle class doesn't mean 1%er. It means well off. I'm so sick of people who are extremely well off trying to pretend they aren't just because there is someone richer out there.

If you can save 200K annually in 5 years you'll have a million in the bank plus your retirement and whatever else you have saved. If you don't want to call yourself rich, fine. It doesn't change the fact that you are. I can call myself the queen of England if I want but it doesn't change the facts.

This is not 1986, a million dollars in the bank plus retirement doesn't make you rich. I am so sick of people who thinks someone like me is rich just because there is someone poorer out there.

You seem to define "rich" as "only people who can heat their houses by burning $100 bills," in which case the word is totally meaningless. How about this: If you have a HHI of $250K you are in the top 3% of our country, income-wise. The top 1% is about $400K/year and up.

http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/

Wow, you must be dumb, you can't compare the entire country, shit why didn't you include Zimbabwe where they live in dirt huts

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So if you can't sit around in your pajamas all day, you are not upper middle class?? First of all, upper middle class doesn't mean 1%er. It means well off. I'm so sick of people who are extremely well off trying to pretend they aren't just because there is someone richer out there.

If you can save 200K annually in 5 years you'll have a million in the bank plus your retirement and whatever else you have saved. If you don't want to call yourself rich, fine. It doesn't change the fact that you are. I can call myself the queen of England if I want but it doesn't change the facts.

This is not 1986, a million dollars in the bank plus retirement doesn't make you rich. I am so sick of people who thinks someone like me is rich just because there is someone poorer out there.

You are rich. The definition of rich is that you have more money than most people. That is the definition. Maybe you are not obscenely rich, but you are certainly rich by any reasonable definition of that word.

Based on that definition, everyone who is in the top 50% of income is rich, since they by definition have more money than most people. Try as you might, there is no objective definition of rich. This is why we stick to somewhat more subjective terms like middle class, and upper class.

And yet people are arguing making 250K a year doesn't make you upper middle class, either.

Anonymous wrote:

I totally agree. If you *have* to work for a living, you aren't rich. The English class system, which we base ours on whether you want to admit it or not, was based on this very idea. You were either of the "leisure" class and pursued hobbies all day long or you worked. UMC people could be pretty well off but if you were still working to make money, you were not Upper class.

You are conflating "rich" with "Upper Class". Even in England, this is no longer the case...radical shifts happened around the turn of the last century where "middle class" tradespeople became much wealthier than the traditional landed aristocracy (this is basically what the entire series Downton Abbey is about).

UMC probably ranges anywhere from a HHI of $200K (exact figure debatable) to several millions. It's a large income range, but it still accounts for a tiny fraction of people. Some UMC people manage to save and invest to the point where their salaries are no longer their primary means of support (e.g. they no longer "have" to work). I guess in the US, that's pretty close to being UC.

All of these people, UMC and UC, are rich by any standard other than Daddy Warbucks and the Forbes 500.